One for the Mods - Technical Moderation

[xxChrisxx]

As a Technical forum, one would think that technical posts would be subject to a minimum standard of scientific quality. There is one thread in particular filled with overly long pseudo-technical posts that don't actually say anything meaningful. One cannot make a logical rebuttal to the claims because there are no firm, testable claims. So it leads to argument, not discussion.

There has been a suggestion within the thread that ideas should take the approach of a scientific paper. This is a principle that I agree with. As this is an informal forum, the level of rigour doesn't need to match a technical paper, but a good start would be:

A factual claim must be backed up with reasoning and/or evidence, not supposition or opinion.


This thread was initially locked for a time, and rightly so. I'm not asking for things to be shut down, but some effort has to be made to maintain technical standards in these type of threads. As acceptance of crackpot ideas, leads to more threads started by crackpots.

[Tim.Wright]

If you are speaking of the new engine thread, then while the original poster seems to be doing a lot of handwaving there are some intetesting responses from other people which are interesting to read. Especially for me not being an engine person.

At least its a somewhat technical discussion. If you want to raise the technical standards of the forum, the first things to do would be to shít-can the race threads and ban any discussions on drivers or sporting regulations.

[xxChrisxx]

If you are speaking of the new engine thread, then while the original poster seems to be doing a lot of handwaving there are some intetesting responses from other people which are interesting to read. Especially for me not being an engine person.

At least its a somewhat technical discussion. If you want to raise the technical standards of the forum, the first things to do would be to shít-can the race threads and ban any discussions on drivers or sporting regulations.

It's not just a technical forum though, there is social interaction and chit chat. I would class the race threads and driver discussions as opinion peices. People are entitled to opinions, no matter how daft (like this thread ).

My problem is when opinion is posed as fact without evidence to back it up. Especially when claiming something so bold.

It is the new engine thread. The responses also contain very little good technical content because they are responding to vague and variable claims.

The whole thread could be miles better if the technical moderation was more stringent. One doesn't need a great deal of technical knowledge to spot a patchy and BS argument.

[Ciro Pabón]

Sure, mods should correct equations and insert proper scientific arguments when needed.

But, no, oh, no, they refuse to do the simplest things: no grammar corrections, no editorial help, no science at all.

They're a bunch of lazy persons.

Actually, I'm starting to suspect this forum has no scientific arguments because it has no real scientists on board!

Some days I think some of the threads are actually made by amateurs... or mere engineers. No Doctors, no PHDs, heck, not even a tenure professor... and it shows: most posts have no references AT ALL.

It's clear as day: most people here have only a master degree! It's that normal, I ask you? Should it be tolerated?

Allow me to answer my own rhetorical question with dignity and firmness:

NO! It should not be tolerated. No tenure, no posts.

Some people around this site, I'm ashamed to say, may even plagiarize other publications.

When was the last time someone made a check of the pictures in the caption competition thread to verify there are no copies of other similar threads? Let me guess: NEVER!!!!!

Mods, I suspect, are merely engineers.

Social interaction? Chris? Really? Social interaction? What are you thinking? Give me facts or give me death!

There is a simple fact that lingers around this forum, Chris and it's NOT social interaction (which F1 true fans despise, btw):

Where can you find a published mathematician when you need one?

Certainly, not here.

Why mods cannot technically moderate my posts? And what about my laundry? It's sitting there and there are no mods to wash my clothes! No stringent standards and no laundry? Is this a joke? We demand technical moderation NOW! Oh, and laundry support... NOW!

[flynfrog]

[turbof1]

They're a bunch of lazy persons.

I very much wished I could deny that, but yeah... . About your laundry: for god's (oh sorry, it's probably not very sciency to talk about a god) sake Ciro, how many times do I have to tell you: turn your pants inside out!

@chris: We categorize and prioritise. The policy you suggest is actually applied on the car threads, which we deem the most important threads: it's a direct outlook on the car and the discussion have to be strictly technical.

Then we have several gradation below it: the chen engine thread for instance is treated a bit more loose. Sure there are some things that there that have a walk with reality, but still we have a good technical discussion going on in there. Sometimes a lie can lead the others to explain why it isn't the truth and good info comes out of that. Sometimes just by strange or random things, like the chen engine, a good discussion comes out. I'd even go as far as saying I can draw the parallel to Isaac Newton: discovering gravity by something random like a falling apple.

I am not going to bother to explain how we moderate the team and race threads. It takes fairly a lot to force a moderator to take action in there.

Btw, social interaction makes talking about science possible in the first place. There's a headbreaker for ya.

[tathan]

It's not a scientific paper though is it? It's a public forum. A place where things are discussed. And so it is quite right that stupid people can say stupid things.

The chen engine thing for example - it's clearly bollocks, I know it is, you know it is. I've even replied a few times and not had a decent answer, but are you suggesting we delete it? Don't you think it makes more sense to peer review it (i.e. us) and to agree that it is bollocks? Think of this more as a place where things can be peer reviewed, rather than a published article.

Or, don't worry so much. I'm sure the mods have got enough to do removing adverts for cheap Nike Airs without testing every hypothesis on here.

[xxChrisxx]

Its not about mods 'testing a hypothesis'. Or getting people to write a fully cited article, or even to have ideas I disagree with hit with the banhammer. Reread my post.

Its basically asking why people are just allowed to make stuff up and present it as fact. This is not a single post, a slip of the tongue, its basically a thread full of nonsense statements and ever changing scope. So much so that you can't even begin to tackle any claims logically. A thread where one party is making it up as they go along and evading any counterpoint, does not lead to reasoned discourse.

It doesn't take intimate knowlege of the subject to detect obvious bullshit.


edit
It's important to note that I am not leveling criticism at the mods, they shouldn't have to play referee to every thread out there. This is more a question on of the policy on cranks/crackpots.

[Jef Patat]

I do get the point of frustration, for example with the chen engine thread. I have had the same feeling in the past (fuel rate sensor in the recent past) But try to look at it the other way around. As others have said, look at it from the non moron side. There is some interesting stuff in there as well.

As for your scientific approach? I'm on the side of Ciro Pabón (BTW, thanks for your humor in that one). You just can't expect what you are asking for. We just don't have any numbers. The only numbers we have are the numbers in the rules. It's not like we have access to engine, CFD, ... data. So how could we discuss on such a basis? Participating in this forum should mean you are aware of this, and the consequences of this.

Even in real world 'real' science what you are asking for is not possible. We mostly talk in theories, and theories mostly cannot be backed up with data out of experiments. Just think of the general relativity theory. First there was the theory, and just years later a first experiment could be conducted. Only decades later they did precise experiments. Same with quantum physics, ...

Moderators are here to moderate, to keep discussions within the rules of the forum, not to censor based on their own divine knowledge. In my eyes, they are doing a fairly decent job.

[rjsa]

Well, a larger quota of downvotes and the justifying of them could help here, but I guess that's already being discussed.

[turbof1]

Well, a larger quota of downvotes and the justifying of them could help here, but I guess that's already being discussed.

It's a game of compromises - we have to weight up correct usages of the downvote system against incorrect usage/abuse. Overall it's best as it is now: downvoting should only be allowed sparingly. Even now abuse is still possible, but only by members who have a high enough reputation, and basicilly those only got their reputation by doing the right things around here. It's basicilly a semi-automated form of trust: you've got us to trust you, so we trust you with more downvoting rights.

[xxChrisxx]

The downvote system is probably a bit of a clumsy tool for this. People tend to upvote posts that agree and downvote posts that they disagree with.

I've always tried to reserve my downvotes for posts I find vacuous rather than those I disagree with.

[Moxie]

Sure, mods should correct equations and insert proper scientific arguments when needed.

But, no, oh, no, they refuse to do the simplest things: no grammar corrections, no editorial help, no science at all.

They're a bunch of lazy persons.

Actually, I'm starting to suspect this forum has no scientific arguments because it has no real scientists on board!

Some days I think some of the threads are actually made by amateurs... or mere engineers. No Doctors, no PHDs, heck, not even a tenure professor... and it shows: most posts have no references AT ALL.

It's clear as day: most people here have only a master degree! It's that normal, I ask you? Should it be tolerated?

Allow me to answer my own rhetorical question with dignity and firmness:

NO! It should not be tolerated. No tenure, no posts.

Some people around this site, I'm ashamed to say, may even plagiarize other publications.

When was the last time someone made a check of the pictures in the caption competition thread to verify there are no copies of other similar threads? Let me guess: NEVER!!!!!

Mods, I suspect, are merely engineers.

Social interaction? Chris? Really? Social interaction? What are you thinking? Give me facts or give me death!

There is a simple fact that lingers around this forum, Chris and it's NOT social interaction (which F1 true fans despise, btw):

Where can you find a published mathematician when you need one?

Certainly, not here.

Why mods cannot technically moderate my posts? And what about my laundry? It's sitting there and there are no mods to wash my clothes! No stringent standards and no laundry? Is this a joke? We demand technical moderation NOW! Oh, and laundry support... NOW!
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/new ... 39/fa5.jpg

Is this tongue in cheek humor, or are you really this arrogant?

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the use of references, and if you review my posts, you will see that when I quote from other sources, I cite them. However, if you think that PI's and grad students sit around all day and quote references to each other, then you are really misinformed. This is not a formal academic presentation, it is an on-line forum about race cars where professionals and laymen commingle. The laymen sometimes ask stupid questions, or present stupid arguments. Get over it.

It's clear as day: most people here have only a master degree! It's that normal, I ask you? Should it be tolerated?..Mods, I suspect, are merely engineers.

WOW!!! This must be one of the most arrogant statements I have ever seen in writing. A Ph.D is an strong indication of a person's level of competence, but it does grant exclusive domain over knowledge. To disregard every scientist who lacks a Ph.D. is elitist and draws attention away from the underlying science. The world has seen a lot of good science performed by people with Masters degrees and Bachelors degrees, as well as non-degree amateurs. The science should be the focus, not the letters.

Where can you find a published mathematician when you need one?

The American Journal of Mathematics

?..social interaction (which F1 true fans despise, btw):

This is just sad, and explains a lot.

I hope you do not succeed in your elitist endeavor with this forum, but I do hope you find whatever it is you are looking for...somewhere.

[rjsa]

It obviously flew above your head. It was 110% ironic.

[turbof1]

No disrespect meant, but before people complain about how technical messages should be, you might want to learn sarcasm first.