Science  permalink

This is the only board...

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 23 of 23
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Kiteman (U1056601) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    ...on the entire BBC that includes the discussion of "Science" within its remit.

    I would like to register my objection to the sudden decision to censor threads that are not directly related to specific R4 programmes.

    I would also like to formally request that, should the BBC continue the censor the R4 board, then the currently-closed Science board be re-opened.

    (I'd call this a petition, but I think the censorship may have already driven away many readers.)


    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by StuartG (U14275984) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    Fri, 03 Sep 2010 12:23 GMT, in reply to Kiteman in message 1

    Try not to let it bother You too much, as they say "every dog has his day" and, "as sure as eggs are eggs" it will backfire.
    Cheers,
    StuartG

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by ferrocene (U4532553) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    M1

    Agreed.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Central Communities Team (U1097995) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    Hi Kiteman

    There's no "sudden decision" that this is what the board is for:

    "Let's hear your thoughts on our recent science, health, nature and environmental programmes."

    That's not new - have you never read it? It's just above the button you clicked to start this topic. You've been using the BBC messageboards a long time so I'd be surprised if you weren't aware of the off-topic house rule.

    The R4 science topic hasn't had sufficient resources devoted to it to close all the off-topic discussions so we are lending some time temporarily until the situation is resolved.

    Paul - CCT

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by armouredinnerjacket (U14007711) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    Are you 'Paul in the Communities'? Could be a satire based on St. Paul's travels to the Christian communities of the early church...it just might work!

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Greg (U6779230) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    Kiteman you need a helping hand from our esteemed MP’s as oft interviewed on the Today program by such august presenter as John Humphries. “Good morning John, in order to answer your question about the Scottish fishing industry I would like to talk about red squirrels”. And there you have it; relevant, topical, scientific etc....

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Joe K (U5367586) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    Interestingly, the 'hockysticks' OP, by Ngauruhoe, was replaced with 'This post has been removed', initially, but now that's been changed to the more conventional 'This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.'

    I was about to reply to the thread, but it was closed before I sent. What I was *going* to say was that it was clearly off-topic for the Science board, but it would be interesting, from a sciency POV, to test the theory that unless an obviously off-topic thread is reported, the mods will do nothing. Now, there's no way to know if the mods *did* just do something, or someone else reported the thread...

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Olmy (U2224973) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    In reply to Central Communities Team in message 4

    There's no "sudden decision" that this is what the board is for:

    "Let's hear your thoughts on our recent science, health, nature and environmental programmes." 

    Indeed.

    However, for some considerable time, that remit has been interpreted very loosely.

    Whether through a deliberate policy decision or not, this has become a place where science in general is discussed.

    The closing down of threads that don't meet the letter of the remit *is* a "sudden decision".

    Even now, there doesn't seem to be any consistency in what threads have been closed - perhaps because you realised you'd have to close pretty much all of them?

    Consistency and a full explanation would be both polite and respectful of the board users.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Joe K (U5367586) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    Oh crapola, I guess this makes my thread about Gaviotas off-topic as well... smiley - sadface

    And that's why 'Clounds' got closed!

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Jumbo1979 (U9029675) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    Is there some reason why the only science related board is required to only comment on scientific issues as they relate to BBC programming while other boards allow topics that do not relate to BBC output?

    This Radio 4 science board appears to be the only board in which any significant scientific discussion could be on topic. While it could be argued its a Radio 4 science board not a general science board several of the Radio 2 boards include content not relating to Radio 2 output. Only 1 of the 8 religion boards have any requirement to relate to BBC programming. Only 1 of 4 gardening boards seem to directly relate to the BBC output. The Wales and Northern Ireland boards do not have this requirement nor do the parenting boards. None of the history boards appear to have this requirement.

    Science content seems to be rather limited and restricted in a way some of the other content is not.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by StuartG (U14275984) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:00 GMT, in reply to Kiteman in message 1

    At the risk of the 'contra' taking over. To a certain extent You have Yourself to blame. Complain about some posters vehemently, only to be subverted by a failure to see another [worse] 'thread threat' on one of the flanks, and the CCT on the other. Like I say don't worry so much, and as Anna might say....

    best.

    A



    StuartG

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by StuartG (U14275984) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:03 GMT, in reply to Central Communities Team in message 4

    This one's about ready to be closed.....

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Dermod (U14282701) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    Let's hear your thoughts on our recent science, health, nature and environmental programmes."  What makes science matters different? Why on the Archers MB www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb... do we find for "The Bull" MB the following invitation:-
    "Your space to chat with fellow Archers listeners, about anything outside the programme"

    What makes science matters different is a clear agenda to limit discussion by creative interpretation of the House Rules. There isn't much wrong with the House Rules, they are there to keep the boards orderly.

    You would be a great deal more convincing if you enforced the House Rules more rigorously, e.g. why are contributors allowed to call others liars? It isn't allowed in the Houses of Parliament, why here?

    You explanation The R4 science topic hasn't had sufficient resources devoted to it to close all the off-topic discussions so we are lending some time temporarily until the situation is resolved.  rings completely false because it doesn't match with what you do. What you do (are doing) is restrict the discussion to those matters you approve.

    Many have complained, with good examples, of being ruled 'off topic' when raising matters central to one programme or another. Like I observed before, perhaps you are new here, you certainly are not basing your arguments on what has been happening in the past.

    You give the strong impression that you neither know nor care what has been happening here previously nor what is done on other message boards, you merely wish to tighten the restrictions to gain favour with someone even more remote from the MBs than yourself.

    The BBC is facing increasing doubts about the AGW affair because it is seen as a branch of government propaganda. The much vaunted independence is just not to be seen, great for the finances; bad for a licence fee funded broadcaster.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Joe K (U5367586) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    Why? Have you complained about it?

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Poppy55 (U10228702) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    I dont know why the pheromones subject was closed and why some others that do not have anything of science are left to populate smiley - erm.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Joe K (U5367586) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    posted by Dermod

    You would be a great deal more convincing if you enforced the House Rules more rigorously, e.g. why are contributors allowed to call others liars? It isn't allowed in the Houses of Parliament, why here? 
    A more relevant question would be: why are some contributors allowed (sometimes) to get away with lying?

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Joe K (U5367586) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    What would be useful, is some list or precis of what topics BBC science programmes have featured lately? Although ideally, obviously, listeners should come away from The Material World or whatever, avid to post a topic.

    Just how many science programmes are on the Beeb? And do we count TV programmes, or does the fact that this is an R4 board imply only radio progs?

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Dermod (U14282701) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    A more relevant question would be: why are some contributors allowed (sometimes) to get away with lying?  Does that matter? You are free to give another version of the story.

    Lying necessarily requires the intention to deceive, that is not so easy to establish and it probably is not of much interest to the readers of the post, they can work out for themselves which is the more believable story.

    Calling someone a liar is rather a waste of time, you still should explain the 'truth' as you see it. Don't embarrass your readers by demanding they believe your version.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by James42 (U1712240) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    A subtle cover up is still a cover up.

    Scientists have been caught out lying about the weather and the Beeb is helping them save face, so what does that make the Beeb???????

    James

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Kiteman (U1056601) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    Paul (CCT),

    That does not address the problem.

    This is the only board where science is "on topic".

    Why are threads suddenly being censored on the grounds (presumably) of being off topic?

    Suddenly is entirely the case, because the enforcement is sudden - almost a whole page of threads closed without comment in a few minutes, and more since.

    The BBC has a binding remit to educate as well as entertain. By providing forum after forum to freely gossip about entertainment, but severely restricting the topics on one of the few vaguely educational boards, the BBC is wilfully flouting this remit.

    I have been using the boards a long time. Have you?

    Do you remember when there were actual *science* boards?

    Do you remember what happened to those boards when they were so badly (deliberately?) neglected?

    Do you remember when, rather than fix the troll problem, the admins restricted the board content, and then closed the boards altogether, on the grounds that they were troll-riddled?

    The R4 science topic hasn't had sufficient resources devoted to it to close all the off-topic discussions so we are lending some time temporarily until the situation is resolved. 
    With all due respect, that is nonsense.

    I know admins on other sites, with far more active members than the R4 board (tens of thousands, as opposed to a couple of dozen), and they keep those boards in line alone.

    ----------------------------

    Paul, would you care to explain to us *why* there is no proper science board?

    That is, why the choice is "you can only talk about what we talk about first" and "go away"?

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Nick-RR (U8551375) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    CCT,

    There's no "sudden decision" that this is what the board is for:

    "Let's hear your thoughts on our recent science, health, nature and environmental programmes." 


    This is extremely disingenuous. The board has been used for years for science topics in general without any problems.

    Please be honest with us and tell us really why it is being closed down.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Joe K (U5367586) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    Dermod

    A more relevant question would be: why are some contributors allowed (sometimes) to get away with lying?
    Quoted from this message



    Does that matter? You are free to give another version of the story.

    Lying necessarily requires the intention to deceive, that is not so easy to establish and it probably is not of much interest to the readers of the post, they can work out for themselves which is the more believable story.

    Calling someone a liar is rather a waste of time, you still should explain the 'truth' as you see it. Don't embarrass your readers by demanding they believe your version. 

    Firstly, don't tell me what to do smiley - smiley

    Secondly, I gave my 'version' of the story. That is, I explained exactly how the person concerned completely misrepresented several things I had said, invited that person to quote my supposed words, and noted that he/she couldn't. That person then repeated the lies at least twice, and in spite of being totally busted, the mods let at least one of those instances of lying stand. Now, maybe it's not lying so much as delusion. I did allow for that possibility. It's still not the truth, and I still have a right to say so.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Kiteman (U1056601) on Friday, 3rd September 2010



    Am I the only one to think that the above-noted failures in moderation are actually deliberate?

    When the original boards got closed, the reason given was the thorough riddling of the board with trolls - creationists and lunatics posting blatant lies, outright slanderous insults etc.

    They neglected to acknowledge that the months prior to the closure were notable for a complete absence of moderation - almost no flagged posts were removed, except those criticising the lack of moderation...














    (I may be paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?)

    Report message23

Back to top

About this Board

This was the BBC Radio 4 messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

The Radio 4 messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Other BBC Messageboards

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.