Forum Guidelines have been updated

[sal_vager]

2 hours ago, Elthy said:

What exactly did happen? Why is this rule not enforced anymore? It did sound good in theory...

Finaly! Does creationism fall under that definition, too (i would consider it "denial of historic events"?

Yes it does.

On add-ons, punishing new members simply for asking if their favorite mod has been or will be updated by issuing them with warnings was deemed nonconstructive, instead the inquisitive are encouraged to check the first post of an add-on thread, and modders are asked to keep this updated.

2 hours ago, sarbian said:

So the burden of handling spammer is now on the modder but without the tools ?

No, but instead of warning new members only to find they never return in disgust at being punished for asking a question, people interested in addons will be encouraged to look for the answer if one exists, this changes from a negative action in dealing with requests to a positive one.

Continued posts of the same nature from one member falls under rule 2.2D and will be actioned.

Modders are asked to facilitate this by updating their first post when news becomes available.

[p1t1o]

19 hours ago, sal_vager said:

A pseudo science subforum is an idea.

OhGodOhGodOhGodOhGodOhGodOhGod

PLZ NO

Sure its "an" idea...

 

[Gaarst]

19 hours ago, sal_vager said:

A pseudo science subforum is an idea.

A terrible one, that is.

Having a pseudo-science subforum would literally be screaming: "come post all your conspiracy theories here and discuss them with people who think you are idiots and won't listen to anything you say even though that 1990s website by that random guy absolutely proves that the whole world is a lie".

[MaxZhao]

Good to know! Still hope people read through previous posts and try out the mod themselves before asking for updates though! Modders are very busy and working in their freetime! Remember to say thank you to them!

[sal_vager]

49 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

A terrible one, that is.

Gaarst! Just who I wanted to see, I have this new subforum idea and I wanted to know if you'd like to volunteer to moderate it

[Spaceception]

Political, ideological or religious posts unrelated to Spaceflight, or of a nature deemed likely to result in behavior banned under rule 2.2D;

 

So discussing future stuff, or theoretical Alien politics is on the table, so long as it relates to Spaceflight?

[cratercracker]

Hey! I noticed that moderators sometimes don't know that there is a Mission idea or Challenge. The problem that there is a huge difference between those two. Can we do something to stop misunderstanding? For example to make somekind of first line of text which is especially made for writing a type of post.

 

 

(not ment to offend moderators..oh well R.I.P me....)

[sal_vager]

15 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Political, ideological or religious posts unrelated to Spaceflight, or of a nature deemed likely to result in behavior banned under rule 2.2D;

 

So discussing future stuff, or theoretical Alien politics is on the table, so long as it relates to Spaceflight?

It can be, this is a small relaxation to see if our community is mature enough to allow this, the previous rule was too strict and would make such topics as Christian music or the beliefs behind the Indian space program a banned subject on these forums.

I think we're better than that, and as long as a thread is not of a nature deemed likely to result in behavior banned under rule 2.2D, or is not unrelated to space, we can see how it develops.

If this is abused however a strict rule against politics, religion and ideologies can be reinstated.

 

4 minutes ago, cratercracker said:

Hey! I noticed that moderators sometimes don't know that there is a Mission idea or Challenge. The problem that there is a huge difference between those two. Can we do something to stop misunderstanding? For example to make somekind of first line of text which is especially made for writing a type of post.

 

 

(not ment to offend moderators..oh well R.I.P me....)

 

Well, if members stick to the Challenge Guidelines it will be much easier to tell them apart.

 

[Gaarst]

3 hours ago, sal_vager said:

Gaarst! Just who I wanted to see, I have this new subforum idea and I wanted to know if you'd like to volunteer to moderate it

I'm down, but be warned this is either going to be 1984 or MadMax.

[Jarin]

7 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

I'm down, but be warned this is either going to be 1984 or MadMax.

Dibs on the magnet-generator-powered death wagon!

[Spaceception]

1 hour ago, sal_vager said:

It can be, this is a small relaxation to see if our community is mature enough to allow this, the previous rule was too strict and would make such topics as Christian music or the beliefs behind the Indian space program a banned subject on these forums.

I think we're better than that, and as long as a thread is not of a nature deemed likely to result in behavior banned under rule 2.2D, or is not unrelated to space, we can see how it develops.

If this is abused however a strict rule against politics, religion and ideologies can be reinstated

1

Yay!

Alien politics, here I come

[The_Rocketeer]

I find this burden-of-proof rule very strange. The fundamental basis of science is that nothing whatsoever can be said with absolute certainty, only with the knowledge that a quantity of evidence exists that tends to suggest something is true.

Take the 'the sky is blue' argument. No it isn't. The sky looks blue, and the evidence suggests that the wavelengths of light that travel from that region of spacetime to the detector cells in our eyes tend to be those that we interpret as blue. In reality, 'the sky' is an abstract concept of something that really doesn't exist in any unitary physical sense, but which we percieve through sensory experience as though it did.

I think the specificity of this rule is just asking for trouble.

Edited March 1, 2017 by The_Rocketeer

[Deddly]

@The_Rocketeer I think that barring having a set of rules as extensive as the Library of Congress, the only way to make it exactly clear and cover all possible contingencies is to add the human element, like we have done: Hopefully the spirit of the guidelines is clear enough, but the moderators will step in if they have to.

Edit: I misread your post. You want less specifics. I'm not sure I understand, in that case. Can you explain?

Edited March 1, 2017 by Deddly

[p1t1o]

1 hour ago, Gaarst said:

I'm down, but be warned this is either going to be 1984 or MadMax.

Ooh! You could call it "The Thunderdome"!

But also plz no

Edited March 1, 2017 by p1t1o

[KSK]

10 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Ooh! You could call it "The Thunderdome"!

But also plz no

How about the Ministry of Truth then? Seems appropriate for a pseudoscience sub-forum. But yes - or rather no. Please no.

[Just Jim]

I would like clarification on one point concerning hoaxes in a fan fiction work.

Specifically, I had planned on mentioning one somewhat famous hoax, the Philadelphia Experiment, in an upcoming chapter of Emiko Station. However, what I had planned is purely fictional, has no basis in fact, and could never actually happen, except in a science fiction story. 

Will this create a problem?

 

[Frybert]

Just now, Just Jim said:

I would like clarification on one point concerning hoaxes in a fan fiction work.

Specifically, I had planned on mentioning one somewhat famous hoax, the Philadelphia Experiment, in an upcoming chapter of Emiko Station. However, what I had planned is purely fictional, has no basis in fact, and could never actually happen, except in a science fiction story. 

Will this create a problem?

 

Nope. 

[Just Jim]

2 minutes ago, Frybert said:

Nope. 

Cool... just wanted to make sure! Thank you. 

[dlrk]

Glad that draconian "No asking about updates!" rules was changed!

Doesn't 2.2(j) more or less ban a lot of KSP Fan Works (of which there is a subforum). Could it be changed to exclude KSP Fan Works from that rule?

Somewhat more contentiously, how broad is 2.2(c)? Are references to marijuana totally banned?

Are bumps always banned?

 

[Frybert]

23 minutes ago, dlrk said:

Glad that draconian "No asking about updates!" rules was changed!

 

Well, asking for update release dates is still banned (and always has been). Also keep in mind that while asking about updates to a mod is not by itself against the rules anymore, its still frowned upon and may be a violation of another rule.

 

23 minutes ago, dlrk said:

Doesn't 2.2(j) more or less ban a lot of KSP Fan Works (of which there is a subforum). Could it be changed to exclude KSP Fan Works from that rule?

 

Not now, nor has it ever been, the intent to rule out fan works. Telling a story is not the same thing as role playing.

 

23 minutes ago, dlrk said:

Somewhat more contentiously, how broad is 2.2(c)? Are references to marijuana totally banned?

 

Short answer: yes.

 

23 minutes ago, dlrk said:

Are bumps always banned?

 

Bumps and +1 posts have been banned as long as I can remember.

[The_Rocketeer]

21 hours ago, Deddly said:

I misread your post. You want less specifics. I'm not sure I understand, in that case. Can you explain?

My point is that posting theoretical/hypothetical and utterly unproveable material now falls on the wrong side of the rules. Having the human element is all well and good, except if someone has absolute belief in something and gets slapped down for believing it. That would be discrimination on the basis of faith. Speaking about things as though the acceptable can always be proven and the unacceptable can't is a very narrow and prejudicial stance to take for a community as scientific as this one <= this is what I'm referring to by 'specificity'. 'Proven' is an absolute state - Creationism isn't any less 'proven' than the theory of evolution, if it was it wouldn't be called a theory. Just because evolution is generally accepted by educated people doesn't make those people any more or less right. Science and logic are belief systems much like any other - you believe that the universe makes sense because it did when you tested it, so you have faith that it will do so next time and everytime going forward. This is another generally accepted but unproven theory.

Not that I don't sympathise with the needs of the forum staff to provide simple guidelines that people can understand, but we should be able to discuss all potentialities without feeling afraid to post just because we can't prove what we think.

[monstah]

@The_Rocketeer I believe you're reading that rule more severely than it is written. It doesn't say the word 'proven' anywhere; what is says is that it needs factual basis and evidence, which are not the same as proof.

All valid scientific theories and hypotheses begin being based on some fact or observation, which can be taken as evidence. Crackpot pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, however, don't. In fact, they usually point to lack of evidence as evidence of some cover-up, which renders any logical discussion of the matter moot.

[The_Rocketeer]

1 hour ago, monstah said:

@The_Rocketeer I believe you're reading that rule more severely than it is written. It doesn't say the word 'proven' anywhere; what is says is that it needs factual basis and evidence, which are not the same as proof.

All valid scientific theories and hypotheses begin being based on some fact or observation, which can be taken as evidence. Crackpot pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, however, don't. In fact, they usually point to lack of evidence as evidence of some cover-up, which renders any logical discussion of the matter moot.

I think you have failed to take on board my point about belief systems.

'Factual basis' can be applied to any description or interpretation of the universe whatsoever - we are not interpreting something that does not, at least in some respect, exist. Evidence is also a question of perspective - what you or the majority deem credible evidence might not be what another person does. In the end this is just populism.

[sal_vager]

@The_Rocketeer, 'Factual basis' will be decided by the moderator team on a case by case basis, thank you for your input on this but the rule will stand as it is for the time being.

Also. moved to the Kerbal Network as this thread is no longer required in announcements.

[munlander1]

Was that rule implemented because of the moon landing thread I started? I don't really care, just curious