Politics and Manned Space-flight Options

[djellison]

Over the past 24 hrs, several members have demonstrated that they strongly object to and are unable to follow the 'no politics' rule, citing words such as 'censorship' and 'subjective'. How or why people find it so hard to not discuss politics still amazes me and fellow admins. So - I'm going to make it a little easier for you.

Three things in terms of Forum admin are happening as of today.

Firstly, the manned space flight section is to be turned into a read-only archive. This is NOT a statement regarding my or the forum's support or otherwise for Manned Spaceflight. It is simply a symptom of the sorts of discussion that happen there that so many brush against or dive straight into issues of, around or referencing politics. I thought (perhaps naievly) that UMSF members would be able to use an enjoy such a subsection without political issues creeping in as often as they have. Time has demonstrated that assumption to be wrong. Time has demonstrated that the vast majority of administrative headaches have their genesis in that sub-forum. If you try to argue that it's impossible to have discussions without politics, I would suggest you look at the 117,000 posts and more than 5,000 topics that managed to do exactly that. If you honestly can't see a way to have a discussion without politics, please find another forum, UMSF is not for you. Given that the manned-v-unmanned debate is against forum rules, and there is now no platform for manned spaceflight debate - this will almost certainly mean the end of any manned spaceflight discussion at UMSF. I repeat, this is not a statement regarding the pros and cons of one versus the other.

Secondly - the politics rule is staying - and is to be enforced even more strongly than ever before. So often I have heard comments such as 'I really like UMSF but.....' with that 'but' always citing one of the key things we do as an admin team to make UMSF the forum the person says they really like. Zero-tolerance of fringe theories, conspiracies etc is one. Zero-politics is another. Dictatorship style administration is another. Because UMSF is a good place to discuss image processing, MER, Cassini and so on, that does not mean it should be a good place to discuss anything any visitor wants to. It is precisely because they CAN'T that it is the place that it is. This forum was started as and will remain focused on particular discussions.

Thirdly - the Policy and Strategy subforum is to be renamed . I can understand that some might see a 'no politics' rule, but a 'policy' subforum as see confusion. This forum will be renamed 'Exploration Strategy' and is a home for debate about mission selection, pre-mission approval debate, ideas for new missions and so on. But, it does NOT become a new home for political debate.

Administration by its nature is subjective. If you are unable to establish for yourself what is or is not acceptable at UMSF, please find another forum. The forum guidelines make it rather obvious. It is when people decide to selectively ignore them that we have to subjectively enforce them.

As for censorship - this still strikes me as the most blinkered criticism I can imagine. No one is saying that you can not discuss Politics, or Cydonia. The rules simply state that you can not discuss them here.. There are plenty of other forums that you can visit if you want to have discussions outside the remit of UMSF - four popular ones are listed below.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com : Well moderated, the closest thing to UMSF for manned spaceflight.
http://www.bautforum.com : Well moderated, has conspiracy and against the mainstream sub-forums with well crafted rules to insist such discussions make progress and are well structured within a time frame. Religion and Politics not welcome.
http://www.habitablezone.com : Little moderation, has a current-events section for political debate.
http://www.marsroverblog.com : Near zero moderation, anything goes.

I frequent all, contribute to some, and enjoy (for a variety of reasons) all of them.

If you have a problem with forum rules - send us a private message (the 'report a post' tool is probably useful for this). The reason I have assembled the admin team that I have, is because I trust them more than I trust the general UMSF membership when it comes to decisions about UMSF. Emily, Dan, Glen, Nico, Joe and I have a similar vision of UMSF. We're not all immature 20-somethings ( infact, I'm the only 20-something out of the lot, and that's not true much longer). I picked that team because they're not me - because they're older (sorry guys - it's true), more worldly, and certainly wiser than I. It's no secret that we have a virtual underground lair where we discuss the forum, most major forum decisions, and generally moan about the more pedantic and troublesome UMSF members. If a decision has to be made about UMSF, it will happen there. We may ask you for your input, but until we need it, that decision making process happens in the admin section with the mods and admins tossing ideas around.

Ultimately, however, UMSF is my responsibility, and I've made decisions this morning, on my own, that I was hoping the maturity of UMSF members would mean I wouldn't have to make. Sadly, that's turned out not to be the case. Some will inevitably accuse me of another baby+bathwater reaction. In response, I will say yes - some interesting and good discourse may well fall by the wayside because of this. I have contributed to and enjoyed the manned section myself. However, as the source of so much trouble, it has been a thorn in the side of UMSF as long as it existed, and I have hinted at it's future demise for some time. It helps clarify a grey area and of course, there are many other forums where those debates can happen instead - indeed, far better and more appropriate places where more fruitful and informative discussions can take place. If you think it's a shame that it's gone - ask yourself why you come here, and if that sub-forum really was a key part of what UMSF is about. All we're really doing is enforcing this..

- 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.

The forum guidelines ( http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=boardrules ) have been appropriately adjusted. Further tweaks to the 'EVA' section will happen over the next day or so.

[lyford]

I was very active over on the Bad Astronomy forum before it merged with Universe Today.... and before mer.rlproject.com even existed. bautforum has some very good people there, but it is too big for my tastes.

I would submit that the EVA section in a way serves a greater purpose for the board than the Manned section - I do think it is a good thing to allow members to build a sense of community in ways other than mission speak.... I know I have benefitted not only from the knowledge imparted on this board, but the humor and humanity shared as well in the Chit Chat section.

As one who called for an area to discuss policy and strategy many moons ago (as in months not Galilean satellites), I would be sad to see that go. I was asking for thread to program design: engineering tradeoffs, long term exploration strategies, mission piggyback opportunities, etc, but this had I guess some political overtones in the Better Faster Cheaper section.

I still am in awe of the signal to noise ratio of this board, and it has as much to do with the enforcement by the moderators - which keeps good people coming back to post.

Second the props to nasaspaceflight.com, but in my limited time I choose this board over many! (Sorry Slashdot.....)

[dvandorn]

And, hey -- this just gives me more impetus to get moving on my moribund blog. Now when I want to discuss space history and such, I can use that to motivate myself to go blog...

-the other Doug

[stevesliva]

Oh, speaking of, there was an excellent space history blog on on of the recent carnivals-of-space... [searches]
http://altairvi.blogspot.com/
(Since other outlets are being mentioned)

[Greg Hullender]

Secondly - the politics rule is staying - and is to be enforced even more strongly than ever before.

I definitely welcome that, [political comment removed - Admin]

--Greg

[jmjawors]

UMSF and NSF are like two peas in a pod, in my opinion. They compliment each other very well.

[Bernard]

thanks Doug
I think you are absolutely right

[PFK]

Forget about BBQs; we need to see this lair in all its gothic splendor, accompanied by a soundtrack of suitably blood-curdling moans!

This is what Kubrick would have made of it
[attachment=15566:Warroom.jpg]

[dvandorn]

Gentlemen! You can't fight here! This is the War Room!



-the other Doug

[David]

I've begun to suspect that Doug takes my presence on a thread as evidence of the thread's senescence -- being the most "civilian" of any of the posting members of UMSF (=not a space scientist; not an image tech), as soon as I start posting something on a thread, he knows that the thread has lost any scientific or technical value it might have had and it's time for him to shut it down.

At least it just seems to me that, over and over again, as soon as I post something to a thread the thread disappears -- I don't suppose anyone else has the same experience.

[ustrax]

being the most "civilian" of any of the posting members of UMSF (=not a space scientist; not an image tech)

We can wrestle about that...
I guess I'll win...man...I am known to see abysses where they're not...

[centsworth_II]

...as soon as I post something to a thread the thread disappears -- I don't suppose anyone else has the same experience.

I have.
Or, sometimes, it's just my post that disappears.

[djellison]

I've begun to suspect that Doug takes my presence on a thread as evidence of the thread's senescence --

Utter nonsense. Don't take this the wrong way, but you're not a person who's posting I 'recognise' on the forum. Shaka, Centsworth, Ustrax, Stu - I know what I'm going to get when I see their name. Sometimes it makes me cringe, sometimes it makes me laugh. When it was ol' Bruce - it usually made me cry. But I've not built that sort of (for what of a better phrase) 'posting style profile' for you. You're certainly not a member of the esteemed 'I've got my own thread in the admin section' club. ( and no - I'm not telling everyone who we do have one for )

So I thought I'd look at your past posting with a simple search. A significant portion of your recent posts have been in the manned section, or about the pluto debate, or spectacular rule break in starting a thread about a hearing Griffin was at. So basically, yeah, if the majority of your posts are in a section of the forum that is troublesome, or about a subject on the 'not allowed' list - surely you should expect many to end up closed or culled?


Oh - and someone needs to put the admin team faces on that military conference room photo. But put party hats, streamers, and beer bottles on the table for added authenticity.

Doug

[Shaka]

...and perhaps the heads of some late lamented "guest" posters in jars of formaldehyde.

[ustrax]

a person who's posting I 'recognise' on the forum. Shaka, Centsworth, Ustrax, Stu - I know what I'm going to get when I see their name.

Huuuuum...looks like I need to change my modus operandi...

[David]

Utter nonsense. Don't take this the wrong way, but you're not a person who's posting I 'recognise' on the forum.

Nor would I expect Doug to. It was a joke, with my tongue placed firmly in cheek. (And the joke only works because I know that I'm a pretty obscure poster.) In fact, I'm surprised that Doug bothered to take the time to look me up -- that's going well above and beyond the call of his duty. But his response more or less validates what I was saying -- by the time a non-scientist like me gets around to posting on a "popular" thread, it's probably well past its sell-by date. If Doug hasn't used my participation as an index of thread sourness, he might well consider doing so for the future!

or spectacular rule break in starting a thread about a hearing Griffin was at.

I'd appreciate being informed of my 'rule breaks' at the time they occur, rather than a year or two or three later. Whatever this thread was, I have no recollection of starting it, or of any subsequent administrative response (which I think I would not forget; I recall less "spectacular" instances where I was only very tangentially involved). I certainly apologize for any violations of forum rules on my part, and I am reasonably sure they could only have occurred through ignorance of the rules on my part.