I hope it will work. I value this forum and want it to succeed as a meeting-ground for diverse viewpoints.
2 Likes
@swamidass will we be phasing out (or renaming) some of the old categories?
I suggest adding the TL as a prefix to the category name.
If we have room for one more category, Iād like to suggest āFeatured Discussionsā. This would be a place to put some of the best discussions (comments closed) along with Side comments (open).
Scratch that last one, I just found the Reference category. 
Iāve been out of the loop for a while now, but it seems like this structuring is an attempt to have Discourse regulate itself instead of you having to invest tremendous amounts of time and energy to keep it running smoothly. If so, I think it is a well-devised plan to accomplish just that. Looking forward to seeing how it all works out!
2 Likes
Starting with some general comments. . .
Something needed to be done, so kudos for shaking things up. What you want to do with this site requires getting people to act unnaturally in some ways, so structures and incentives to encourage that behavior are probably needed. Even those of us who buy into your goals may need prodding from time to time when things get heated.
As someone trying to participate here, I currently perceive two major obstacles to the siteās success. One is that the noise level has risen. The other is a frequently adversarial stance and a lack of civility. (Aside: in answer to a question I think @Agauger asked, yes, scientists behave this way. Not all of them or all the time, but often enough that itās a recognized feature of science, and not a good one.) Both obstacles lead to fewer patient, in-depth explorations of arguments and more standard evo/creationist debates.
Some of the problems come with increased size, and I do wonder whether you should be thinking in terms of maintaining a smaller, more focused forum (or collection of forums, e.g. one on theology and one on science) ā think Gordon Conferences (but in public view) rather than the annual meeting of the American Society of Whatever with its cast of thousands. Quite a lot of whatās being posted here now seems to have little directly to do with your stated mission and some ruthless pruning might improve the longterm health of the garden.
As for the proposed specifics, they seem like a step in the right direction, although I have difficulty envisioning how theyāll look in practice. There seem to be a lot of moving parts, which is a concern, but maybe all of the machinery will hum quietly in the background. One thing that does seem essential is that platformed exchanges be highly visible, and that it be easy to get from them to the associated side comments.
5 Likes
I think this is something that I find hard about online forums. People gravitate towards ābirds-of-a-featherā smaller, high impact conversations because itās hard to go through all the justification of every statement to make one point. While some of the conversations here between vastly different folks is very helpful, itās also very difficult to spend time trying to hold a conversation with several people with polar opposite ways of thinking, at the same time.
In my experience, discussion forums mostly seem to go towards one of two ways:
- echo chamber group-think: the main point is to reinforce what you already believe, mostly to gain ammunition for,
- free-for-all intellectual slug fest: the main point is to show how stupid the āotherā view/person is and how completely justified you are in your position by being an obnoxious troll, but hey, weāre having a āconversationā, right?
I think the trick may be to allow for both ābirds of a featherā areas where people can enter work out their beliefs and arguments in a relatively āsafeā environment where there is a lot of common ground, but also encouraging good healthy cross-disciplinary discussion where we can challenge each other and test our beliefs.
For instance, itās great for me to be able to talk with other Christian scholars, as I work at a religious private university, without having to justify Christianity at every step. Itās also helpful for me to be able to (separately) talk with other scientists about cutting edge research, etc. without having to justify mainstream science at every turn. From that place of having one or more āhomeā communities, I would then feel more confident in engaging with the broader āmessā of a forum with all kinds of people, opinions, etc. Does that make sense?
5 Likes
We can make use of the group system to enable this if it becomes necessary. We would have user managed groups, each with their own private or public lounge.
1 Like
Right now, we are neither of these things. I"m confident that we can prevent both of these. At this point, weāve known there was a problem, and found a solution. We need more mild ways of moderating bad patterns, and also ways for the forum to self moderate.
Soon we will be switching over to the new rules. Bonus points to those who start playing by them now:
2 Likes
Yes, Peaceful Science is a remarkable forum, I was just wondering how to keep it that way as it scales. I think youāre being proactive about it and allowing iterative adjustments to help things grow organically. This is a pretty special place.
2 Likes
It certainly is a place where gifted āprofessional studentsā have assembledā¦ glad of the collegiality in the midst of controversy.
Yes, it makes sense and I share your sentiments and thoughtful concerns.
Two independent comments on feedback to Joshās Proposed Structures and Rules.
-
for TL2 to TL3 advancement seems a big hurdle to cross and maintain to be out here at least every other day for 100 days. And it sounds like many of the really good discussions will take place only at a TL3 level. Wondering if the 50% of 100 days could be less stringent? And does TL3 get you access to all discussions at TL3 levels regardless of moderator group? (Iām not sure I understand all the proposed dynamics.)
-
Also, not sure of the language and its implications re: āA Secular-Confessional Societyā Since RTBās position is one that operates from a primary foundation of two-books (i.e. Godās revelation in nature and the Scriptures and the integration possible of those two things when both are rightly interpreted), it is not a āpersonal confessionā but part of the RTB model or starting philosophical/worldview position. The language seems to suggest to me that such a model will be marginalized if all attempts to present that model where it touches on points of theology are deemed personal confessions.
Otherwise, I think it looks promising and indicate my shared sentiments with those who have already posted by ālikingā their comments.
4 Likes
Does not apply to @AJRoberts, you and other scholars from RTB are in the @scholars group which gives you automatic TL3 status.
This is merely our philosophy here, and you do not have to agree with it, though you seem to have no problem operating within it. I explain it here: A Secular-Confessional Society
Not at all. It would dignify at as a legitimate way to understand scientific findings insofar as it is consistent with the evidence. Even if there were challenges, our goal would be to help make sense of it in light of the evidence.
2 Likes
@swamidass is very quick to defend the role of theological stance here.
If there were no theological stances permitted, there would be no Genealogical Adam to discuss.
I interpreted the rule now being discussed as referring to church-style testimonials ā¦ rather than theological explications.
3 Likes
Moderators can promote people more quickly if they are making positive contributions. The rules have a lot of sticks, but this makes a nice carrot.
2 Likes
How many āflagsā does it take to have a post hidden? 2? 4? I see the potential for system misuse when a handful of ID-creationists block criticisms of ID they canāt address. Iāve noticed this especially happens with posts critical of the Discovery Institute.
Why are the identities of the flaggers not shown in the same way the ālikeā posters are shown? Can this be done? Donāt the accused deserve the privilege of knowing their accusers?
Itās irritating to log on only to find your post hidden with no idea who did the flagging and no explanation why.
1 Like
1 flag from a TL3 will hide, it but that sends it to moderator review. The moderators decide if it is a valid flag or not. If it is cleared, then the post would reappear.
The issue is not being critical of DI, it is because you need make substantive critique. We are taking a tougher view of against non-substantive and negative posts. They add nothing to the conversation. In the future just explain evidentially and dispassionately (in the spirit of science) what the issues are. We will allow those posts, and encourage DI advocates to engage.
This is a change from our prior policy, however this is a good change. We want to engage the issues, and posts that are not substantive, or dip into ridicule, will no longer be retained. @Timothy_Horton, I know you dislike ID. No problem with that view here. Just make your case, rather than merely declaring it with a non-substantive and negative post.
1 Like
You can always PM the @moderators to ask. We will attempt to respond within 48 hrs. Usually we do far more quickly than this. If something was flagged inappropriately, it will be returned. We know how often flags are rejected by individual users, so it is a bad idea to indiscriminately flag posts.
The real problem we have now, however, is that not enough flags are being dropped.
How do we know who is a TL3 and which TL3 did the flagging? Why canāt the identify of the flagger be provided in the way the ālikeā givers are provided?
1 Like
That is just not how the software is set up. The moderators have full view, but regular users do not. Iāve chosen fair moderators. If issues arise, let us know. If someone is abusing the flagging system, they will certainly be disallowed from TL3 (which is hard to attain any way), and their flags will be disagreed with.
Who is a TL3? You can get that from looking at profiles, or here:
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/groups/trust_level_3
Scholars group is here:
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/groups/scholars
Though, I may adjust names of both categories and groups in the future.
2 Likes