Purgatory from Q&A

Let me put is this way, there are two serious flat-earth boards that you can use to blast your round-earth propaganda.  Flat Earth Debate and Flat Earth General.  We simply ask that you leave Flat Earth Q&A for legitimate flat-earth questions and answers.  Again, round-earthers have TWO boards they can post in and they are encouraged to repost points from Q&A in these boards that they do not like!  This is akin to walking into a sports bar and throwing a fit because your particular sporting event isn't being showed on all three TV's behind the bar when it's already on two!

On a related note, there are complaints that Q&A is being moderated too loosely.  Jroa has issued a warning and we will start handing out short bans when the rule-breaking does not stop.

Once again. It's not "blast your round earth propaganda." It's posting facts about the real world. It's simply reality.

Are there any genuine FEers around ?

Probably note.

So if there is a post that the earth is a flat disc with an ice wall 150 feet high around it guarded by NASA that should be all that should be permitted without further discussion ?  And that "Earth Not A Globe" is a book written in the 19th Century by an Englishman named Samuel Birley Rowbotham is the absolute authority for the flat earth and no further discussion or debate should be permittted ? Should those be the rules ?

I never said 'without further discussion'. I just think, for people that want to learn about what FET proposes before they poke holes in it, a place where questions can directly be asked exclusively about FET is worth it. If clarification is requested, it should be provided.
The problem with Q&A is that the rules are too loosely defined. That's why I proposed shifting so what's banned is bringing up any RET: have it as a place where the discussion is exclusively about FET. It matches what Pongo's asking for, the rules are better defined, and you can learn about what FET proposes.
The use Debate and General as forums for pointing out why those answers do not make sense, and have those be places that point out contradictions. For Q&A though, it's a different board, it may as well have a different purpose.

Let me put is this way, there are two serious flat-earth boards that you can use to blast your round-earth propaganda.  Flat Earth Debate and Flat Earth General.  We simply ask that you leave Flat Earth Q&A for legitimate flat-earth questions and answers.  Again, round-earthers have TWO boards they can post in and they are encouraged to repost points from Q&A in these boards that they do not like!  This is akin to walking into a sports bar and throwing a fit because your particular sporting event isn't being showed on all three TV's behind the bar when it's already on two!

On a related note, there are complaints that Q&A is being moderated too loosely.  Jroa has issued a warning and we will start handing out short bans when the rule-breaking does not stop.

Having a Q&A section set up exactly the same as the  debate forums is bullshit and will never work how you want it to. It also ignores the fact that debate can take the form of Q&A - they are not mutually exclusive, which causes endless confusion.

Why not scrap it and set it up like stackoverflow or similar.  One question at the top and then people's answers below.

Or you can just keep whining about how it never works properly and banning people until nobody posts in it anymore.

Quote from: Pongo on April 09, 2015, 10:26:15 AM

Let me put is this way, there are two serious flat-earth boards that you can use to blast your round-earth propaganda.  Flat Earth Debate and Flat Earth General.  We simply ask that you leave Flat Earth Q&A for legitimate flat-earth questions and answers.  Again, round-earthers have TWO boards they can post in and they are encouraged to repost points from Q&A in these boards that they do not like!  This is akin to walking into a sports bar and throwing a fit because your particular sporting event isn't being showed on all three TV's behind the bar when it's already on two!

Proving the third TV to be unnecessary when everything anyone wants to watch is already being shown on the other two. The third TV doesn't need to be there.

For this to be true, you must demonstrate that everyone wants to exclusively watch what's already on the other two TVs.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on April 09, 2015, 11:00:03 AM

Quote from: Pongo on April 09, 2015, 10:26:15 AM

Let me put is this way, there are two serious flat-earth boards that you can use to blast your round-earth propaganda.  Flat Earth Debate and Flat Earth General.  We simply ask that you leave Flat Earth Q&A for legitimate flat-earth questions and answers.  Again, round-earthers have TWO boards they can post in and they are encouraged to repost points from Q&A in these boards that they do not like!  This is akin to walking into a sports bar and throwing a fit because your particular sporting event isn't being showed on all three TV's behind the bar when it's already on two!

Proving the third TV to be unnecessary when everything anyone wants to watch is already being shown on the other two. The third TV doesn't need to be there.

For this to be true, you must demonstrate that everyone wants to exclusively watch what's already on the other two TVs.

The presence of questions of the same type in the Debate and General sections is directly analogous to exactly that. It has been demonstrated every time someone asks a question in those sections.

Quote from: Googleotomy on April 09, 2015, 09:59:52 AM

Are there any genuine FEers around ?

Probably note.

Quote

So if there is a post that the earth is a flat disc with an ice wall 150 feet high around it guarded by NASA that should be all that should be permitted without further discussion ?  And that "Earth Not A Globe" is a book written in the 19th Century by an Englishman named Samuel Birley Rowbotham is the absolute authority for the flat earth and no further discussion or debate should be permittted ? Should those be the rules ?

I never said 'without further discussion'. I just think, for people that want to learn about what FET proposes before they poke holes in it, a place where questions can directly be asked exclusively about FET is worth it. If clarification is requested, it should be provided.
The problem with Q&A is that the rules are too loosely defined. That's why I proposed shifting so what's banned is bringing up any RET: have it as a place where the discussion is exclusively about FET. It matches what Pongo's asking for, the rules are better defined, and you can learn about what FET proposes.
The use Debate and General as forums for pointing out why those answers do not make sense, and have those be places that point out contradictions. For Q&A though, it's a different board, it may as well have a different purpose.

Your argument only works if there is one single FET. There isn't. Instead, there are dozens, all contradicting each other. Some have aether. Some don't. Some have bendy light. Some don't. Some have a double sided earth. Some have a single sided earth. Some have an infinite earth. Some have the south pole at the centre. Some have the earth as a big square rather than a disc. You see the problem with having a section where only the "official" line is given? There has to be an official line.

Your argument only works if there is one single FET. There isn't. Instead, there are dozens, all contradicting each other. Some have aether. Some don't. Some have bendy light. Some don't. Some have a double sided earth. Some have a single sided earth. Some have an infinite earth. Some have the south pole at the centre. Some have the earth as a big square rather than a disc. You see the problem with having a section where only the "official" line is given? There has to be an official line.

True, but there's never going to be a way around that, even in debate. If nothing else, it'll make it easier to get a handle on individual theories. That's got to be a major learning curve for newcomers: denpressure to aether to the non-existence of air. If there's a place to ask about it without the likes of ausgeoff butting in to insult everyone, it makes the site somewhat usable.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on April 09, 2015, 01:18:38 PM

Your argument only works if there is one single FET. There isn't. Instead, there are dozens, all contradicting each other. Some have aether. Some don't. Some have bendy light. Some don't. Some have a double sided earth. Some have a single sided earth. Some have an infinite earth. Some have the south pole at the centre. Some have the earth as a big square rather than a disc. You see the problem with having a section where only the "official" line is given? There has to be an official line.

True, but there's never going to be a way around that, even in debate. If nothing else, it'll make it easier to get a handle on individual theories. That's got to be a major learning curve for newcomers: denpressure to aether to the non-existence of air. If there's a place to ask about it without the likes of ausgeoff butting in to insult everyone, it makes the site somewhat usable.

If debate is allowed this can happen:

Q: "If the earth is flat, then there can be no gravity because it would crunch it up into a ball. What holds us down?"
Sceptimatic: "Denpressure caused by an ice dome holding the air in."
Jrowe: "aether. there is no such thing as air."
ausGeoff: "sceptimatic and Jrowe are wrong. Denpressure would not favour any individual direction. And there is no independent evidence for aether."

Result: The questioner learns that there is more than one FE idea for replacing gravity. They learn that the theories are contradictory. They learn that one of the theories doesn't work and that the other has no proper evidence.

If debate is not allowed, this will happen:
Q: "If the earth is flat, then there can be no gravity because it would crunch it up into a ball. What holds us down?"
Sceptimatic: "Denpressure caused by an ice dome holding the air in"
Jrowe: cannot make his post because it is debate against Sceptimatic's post.
ausGeoff: cannot make his post because it is also debate.

Result: the questioner learns there is only a single FE idea for replacing gravity. They do not learn that there are others or that this one conflicts with them. They do not learn that the theory is fundamentally flawed and wouldn't work.

Arguably, the version where some debate is allowed is of more value to a newbie wanting to be educated about FET.

If debate is not allowed, this will happen:
Q: "If the earth is flat, then there can be no gravity because it would crunch it up into a ball. What holds us down?"
Sceptimatic: "Denpressure caused by an ice dome holding the air in"
Jrowe: cannot make his post because it is debate against Sceptimatic's post.
ausGeoff: cannot make his post because it is also debate.

I don't think JRowe's post would be forbidden even under the current system, because it still qualifies as a flat earth answer. AusGeoff's certainly would be, but a) the less said from him, the better and b) so? The person making the post would have two whole forums available to them (debate and general) for criticizing ideas. They can learn of multiple conflicting theories, and learn of how FEers aswer certain questions, and I'd say that's a useful thing to have on the site.
As for whether or not they'd learn the theories are fundametally flawed, you're either going to get an intelligent person who'd spot initial issues with the answers, or someone who's already on the cusp of believing in FET and who won't really care what an REer has to say. Plus it's always possible for other posters to make threads dedicated to "Is there any evidence for aether?" etc.
If they then want to criticize those ideas, they can go ahead, elsewhere, but they'd need to actually know the answers first. There's nothing wrog with debate, but there's a time and a place.

Q&A's a nice idea in theory, for the purpose of newcomers etc who want only to learn about the theory, before criticizing it. It's a place to ask questions like, for example "What is responsible for gravity?" The current way REers invade with "Oh, there's no good answer because __, ___ and ____," is just stupid, because all it does is discourages FEers from posting, and newcomers don't get an answer, and leave (leaving us with only the idiots who are only here to yell at people, like LK).
If you want to ask something like "How does FET deny gravity after the Cavendish experiment?" or "How does FET explain varying gravity on the surface of the Earth?" etc, go to debate, because that's something meant to poke a hole in FET.

The point is, different questions have different purposes. Sometimes, people just aren't interested in blowing FET out of the water: or maybe they'd just like to understand what they're talking about before they do. Debate etc are still around for when people want to actively criticize FET, or ask after something they intend to debate. However, for those who'd rather understand an aspect of the theory without having a thread derailed (which happens often), a Q&A type section works.
The current section isn't well-defined enough for this to work, which is a problem, especially due to the lack of serious FEers, but the theory behind it is definitely worthwhile.
Personally I prefer the idea of altering the rule just so that you're not allowed to mention RET or anything outside the scope of what's being presented. Allows for some debate, but debate exclusively centred around FET. That would allow questions like "Is there evidence for aether?" and "How does denpressure work horizontally?" but no additions like "But the Cavendish experiment shows..." or "We observe changing levels of gravity," thus allowing for discussion, and so education, about FET, with less possibility for derailing.