Possible forum changes

[gavin]

Here are my suggestions. Thanks Alex for supporting the idea of a separate area for discussions on the science. I'm tempted to go ahead with this but will wait a day or so to see what people make of it.

Under 'More ..' down below, an area called 'Science and beekeeping.' Thread initiation to be *moderated* so that only the best topics go up for discussion. Initiators must write a paragraph explaining why this issue is important to kick off the discussion, and must be willing to write up the outcome of the discussion after a period (a month?) with a view to offering it to the Scottish Beekeeper. I'll email Nigel S to see if he is up for linking the magazine and the forum in this way. I suspect that I may be starting more threads than most. Maybe we should even make this a monthly feature, with the best topic going forward for that month after its month's airing?

The topics? Either a single, pivotal paper with wide beekeeping implications, or a single topic that a number of different papers or talks have impacted upon. Hot topics in the news particularly welcome. Perhaps even something a bit broader could be the issue for the month - such as, 'What is the scientific justification for the recent press campaign on pesticides and beekeeping?'. But that is a big topic scientifically and if we are not focussed on single, smaller issues the debate will be too far ranging. We can still do those big topics elsewhere. Another topic might be research projects with which the SBA has got itself involved ... :)

After the month (or whatever) the topic is left up for continuing debate and - hopefully - will become an internet reference of value for beekeeping as a whole.

Second change.

Perhaps just a forum management issue. These conspiracy theory rants. If they are on pesticides or GM I (or fellow moderator) really ought to just move them when they start to the right place, huh? That 'Beekeeping and the Environment' area. And when other threads meander in that direction I (or colleague) should be harder about cutting the discussion and moving it there.

Just some thoughts. Any views, folks? We do have a few non-Scottish Beekeeper subscribing contributors. Maybe the text of any articles published could be presented here too.

[gavin]

I had wondered about a new 'Room 101 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_101)' into which all the posts with dafter ideas would be put, for correction and, if necessary, ridicule. But that is a part of the function of the Environmental area I think? Or is there a role for this, and to tackle not just daft posts but daft ideas out there in general? The media claims of continuing declines in bee numbers? Einstein? Any bee or GM related conspiracy theory you care to mention, leaving the Environmental area for sensible discussion?

[chris]

Firstly Gavin, when I read the post by Alex, I was thinking, yes, yes, yes.
Certainly these topics should not be in the main beekeeping thread as is now the case. One problem I see, is that "scientific" discussion will be reserved for "scientists" apart from me asking daft questions, and others, pertinent ones. Won't it be a 2 or 3 man thread? Perhaps good for learning, perhaps bad for feeling part of a discussion forum.
Last thing, I believe, perhaps naively, that environmental issues can and should be discussed sensibly,even when the content is "less scientific, more philosophic". A Hyde Park corner forum for ranters will keep other places clean, if careful moderation is applied. And that's the problem- you need the moderators to moderate rather than yourself, otherwise you'll become a target .This is to be avoided.
A few first thoughts.

[Jon]

Hi Gavin
Good idea. I am all for it. You know me - a sucker for any kind of argument or debate.
As Chris says, there are not too many science boffins on the forum, just yourself and Jimbo I think, but I don't think that is a problem as neither of you are patronising to the rest of us who have a keen interest but little or no formal training.
Personally, I have learned a lot from various debates here and elsewhere as I start to get anxious when I realise how little I know about something I ought to know about and I go away and start doing some more reading - or just ask more questions.
Even the recent fracas on the bbka forum re pesticides taught me quite a bit as I have a much clearer idea in my head of the distinction between field and lab studies plus the limitations of the latter.
If you take the fact that any claims made should be properly referenced you soon work out who knows what they are talking about and who is bluffing.
There is also a lot of circular referencing going on with stories fed to the press which is then used as a reference to justify the claim being made in the first place. But then I would not call that science.

[Neils]

Gavin. Just to mostly play devil's advocate:

I don't really think that the forum needs another section. There's nothing sadder than a huge forum with a post here, a post there and 25 sections that haven't seen a new post for weeks. I also think you're asking a lot, both of yourself and the other moderators and of the regular contributors to the forum in terms of how posts to the science section should be formulated. Being fresh back from today's IBRA conference, is it really necessary for me to write out a justification before I write a precis of the point I want to discuss and whatever the conclusion is I wanted to make about it?

Moving posts into the relevant section(s) I've no problem with whatsoever. I think it is quite telling at the moment that the appetite for cut and paste rants appears to be on the wane but my fear with something like the Avaast (yaar!) petition gubbins for example is that it might be easy in the middle of a campaign like we're seeing at the moment to mistake a ranty ranty post with a genuine question or opinion. I also think that putting certain topics into a moderated status plays right into the hands of people who'll have no hesitation to use that as a stick to beat you with.

I'd like to think that I'd be free to come on here and, in the relevant section, espouse my belief that Pot Noodle is a very effective varroacide. It might be decided that Bee Health, perhaps, isn't the best place for that thread and it belongs elsewhere, but I'm not sure it should have moderator approval before going up on the forum.

I do think that the idea of having perhaps a "hot topic" of the month that might be suitable to be turned into an article for the Scottish Beekeeper is a good one though, but I'm not sure within the framework that you've laid out so far that it would necessarily get that far.

Just my thoughts.

[Trog]

I agree with Nellie.

I would like to ask if there is a particular flavour of pot noodle which is most effective for controlling varroa and whether the bees have any say in the matter ;)

[gavin]

Devil's advocacy is fine by me ... umm, well, you know what I mean! Feel free to put the other view. It is by such debate that we move forwards.

Thanks everyone so far. Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that the special topic or discussion of some science area should actually be moderated. Only the initiation of threads in that section, so that there wasn't a proliferation of topics but a focus on one issue until its time was done. That could mark out the discussion as something valuable for the community in the long term. Anyone could post within them although, of course, rants would be likely to be transferred elsewhere.

Also, this wouldn't be the only place science could be discussed - just a better way to use the forum to get a focussed, shared discussion doing something productive. Anything you like could still be raised in the other areas.

Yes, we all need to be on guard about getting fired up and therefore giving an inappropriate response to someone posing an innocent question. And I'm acutely aware that there are one or two people looking out to point fingers at forum maladministration and run off and complain to anyone who will listen. I've already had one complaining email tonight from a forum watcher who was probably tipped off by a disgruntled poster (no, not yours S, but another!). So this place will remain uncensored, but I hope that a bit of thought on management will improve the value of the place.

Yes, perhaps we have too few contributors to make something like that work. Yes, we have a very small number of scientists, but in my view anyone with commonsense should be able to contribute to such discussions, perhaps with a little help on the technical matters sometimes.

Anyways, thanks for your thoughts, and if there are more out there I'd be glad to see them.

G.

[Neils]

Even so Gavin, that'll be put forward by some as a form of censorship especially if you take longer than 2.5 milliseconds from submission to allowing the post through and there'll be people who'll send pointless stuff through just so they can whinge that they were censored even if they could just as easily have posted it elsewhere on the forum.

I think as we've perhaps seen on other organisation websites recently, it's not that hard to put the staff on it in a position where they've got no choice in the matter even when they're trying not to get involved so why give someone an easy avenue to back you into a corner?

I think if this was a forum at wwww.gavinsbeekeepingforum.fictional then there'd be no issue, you can do what you want, but here there'll be people who'll be off whining to all and sundry that the Scottish Beekeeping Association is stifling debate that it doesn't agree with even if it's obvious to anyone who cares to look that it's a little less simple than that.

Oh and the Bees prefer Chicken and Mushroom, but the Bombay Bad Boy knocks Varroa down so fast Top Gear wanted it to be the new stig.

[gavin]

Oh, I'm discovering tonight that people will moan at you for a whole variety of things. As long as you're trying to do the right thing for the greatest number of people, I can brush off criticism.

But I don't think that it is sensible to stop developing the forum in useful directions just because there will be someone somewhere wanting to make trouble out of it. What I had in mind was just more organised discussion, that's all. It would be hard to turn that into a complaint that anyone would seriously listen to.

On that other forum you mention, there was a choice and that was one both you and I promoted to no avail. The agent provocateur was great at stringing himself up and should have had a continuing supply of rope, not had it taken away. Never mind, it was a difficult position, as you say.

So .... any more views?

[Neils]

I promise I'll stop after this.

Absolutely don't think you stop trying to evolve the forum but, just to throw a suggestion in the air to be shot down too ;), I think that personally I'd rather see something along the lines of a school of thought, a forum guideline even, documented or not, that it is fine to quote an article, but not verbatim. Provide a link to it and quote the pertinent paragraph that you want to make a point about. Straight cut and paste jobs can go in the bee blether forum or somesuch.

I think it's a hard balance to strike otherwise and the quality of discussion here, generally speaking is pretty high.

[Jon]

I think that personally I'd rather see something along the lines of a school of thought, a forum guideline even, documented or not, that it is fine to quote an article, but not verbatim. Provide a link to it and quote the pertinent paragraph that you want to make a point about. Straight cut and paste jobs can go in the bee blether forum or somesuch.


Everyone knows that bar about 3 individuals. I would also ban the Capslock key and the bold and underline functions.

[gavin]

I did wonder earlier about whether people should be told that they each have a monthly cut-and-paste allowance, and that once they go over it any more cutting and pasting would be removed. However that seemed churlish, and also a lot of work for those managing this place. So, no .. and yes Jon, there are very few indulging in the cut-and-paste steeplechase. Thankfully we've seen little bolding and underlining here.

[AlexJ]

I think the issue is one of the effectiveness of a thread to hold a discussion within the general parameters of that set by originating poster. I absolutely agree that there should be no special censorship or moderation to permanently filter out individuals or opinions contrary to that perceived as the current norm.

As for the science surrounding honeybee morphology and nurture it appears to attract some fairly entrenched views which could do with being discussed in a manner accessible to the majority of beekeepers. My thoughts are that a thread started on say ‘the affect of Neonicotinoid use in agriculture on honeybees health’ could be discussed without wading through a thread embedded with the horrors of the Third Reich, eugenics, mass sterilisation and the threat to civilisation by global corporations. Albeit if a thread was started on the affect corporate monopolies have had on sustainable food production, agriculture… I would be glad to enter into that debate also.

My thoughts were initially that a thread discussing a fairly tight scientific topic could be held on track to until it came to a natural conclusion (or not as the case may be) in relation to the original post. That might require a post which is clearly straying into territory well outwith the thread could be moved to a more appropriate area.

It might take sometime to bed-in but may attract a wider more participative audience if we could evidence a more focussed, perhaps more supportive, forum to discuss the more technical and scientific aspects of beekeeping. This might also assist with Gavin’s thoughts on using the threads to inform the SBK and outside publications. How to summarise and present ‘Thread of the Month’ may prove difficult but seems entirely doable and in line with moves to modernise the SBK.

Perhaps a couple of scientific threads could be raised for a trial period to gauge whether the concept could work in principle? Or how about you invite an acknowledged ‘expert’ to start a thread off in his/hers' particular field for us to discuss jointly. I attended an association meeting in which an experienced and well travelled scientist seemed to hint we were overrating honeybee contribution to pollination across the globe; that would be an interesting thread.

I’m comfortable with whatever you decide; I have no desire to inhibit the more ardent posters rather hive off their more colourful thoughts to an area best suited to drama and hyperbole.

[Neils]

I think the issue is one of the effectiveness of a thread to hold a discussion within the general parameters of that set by originating poster. I absolutely agree that there should be no special censorship or moderation to permanently filter out individuals or opinions contrary to that perceived as the current norm.

As for the science surrounding honeybee morphology and nurture it appears to attract some fairly entrenched views which could do with being discussed in a manner accessible to the majority of beekeepers. My thoughts are that a thread started on say ‘the affect of Neonicotinoid use in agriculture on honeybees health’ could be discussed without wading through a thread embedded with the horrors of the Third Reich, eugenics, mass sterilisation and the threat to civilisation by global corporations. Albeit if a thread was started on the affect corporate monopolies have had on sustainable food production, agriculture… I would be glad to enter into that debate also.
The challenge is, how do we reach that point? And is that what Gavin is trying to reach? Has the mere mention of the term Neonicotinoid, much like "drugs" has in mainstream debate, doomed any subsequent discussion to a shouting match over ideals and bugger the science?


My thoughts were initially that a thread discussing a fairly tight scientific topic could be held on track to until it came to a natural conclusion (or not as the case may be) in relation to the original post. That might require a post which is clearly straying into territory well outwith the thread could be moved to a more appropriate area.

It might take sometime to bed-in but may attract a wider more participative audience if we could evidence a more focussed, perhaps more supportive, forum to discuss the more technical and scientific aspects of beekeeping. This might also assist with Gavin’s thoughts on using the threads to inform the SBK and outside publications. How to summarise and present ‘Thread of the Month’ may prove difficult but seems entirely doable and in line with moves to modernise the SBK.
I'm still torn, simply because it's an avenue of abuse. I like the sentiment, just not how it would have to be applied.



Perhaps a couple of scientific threads could be raised for a trial period to gauge whether the concept could work in principle? Or how about you invite an acknowledged ‘expert’ to start a thread off in his/hers' particular field for us to discuss jointly. I attended an association meeting in which an experienced and well travelled scientist seemed to hint we were overrating honeybee contribution to pollination across the globe; that would be an interesting thread.

I love this idea. The only downside I can see is that the expert who started the thread might not be available to answer questions on it.


Dammit, I broke my wouldn't reply thing; didn't I?

[AlexJ]

Eric,
I believe an internet forum hosted by a body such as the SBA which seeks to represent our interests nationally and internationally should try to ensure it promotes the best interests of all the membership. That in my eyes doesn’t give any one carte blanche to call people liars or demean their professional integrity. This isn’t pointed at you, I mean anybody.

While the majority of the threads have assisted me greatly in starting off my beekeeping career there are some posts that I have found falling far short of that I would expect on the SBA site. These posts generally relate to the environmental (including manmade) factors affecting honeybee morphology. While I’m willing to accept internet anonymity can at times allow language to be used which otherwise wouldn’t be tolerated in open discussion, it shouldn’t be seen as a right. Neither should it be seen as abuse to maintain standards of ‘debating’ etiquette between members.

If this sounds as if I want to suck the spontaneity and fun out of a forum packed with excellent advice and banter that’s absolutely not the case.

In that vein surely it would be a good idea to try and synthesis the wealth of knowledge and experience that you and others have into a number of simple to follow, informative and perhaps academically robust threads? If that means tempering any hostile and irrelevant comments in one small area of the forum, is that so wrong?

I’ll leave it at that and hope a consensus can be reached fairly quickly to take us forward into a new year of beekeeping.



Admin note: Eric posted above here but the effect was to disrupt the focus of the thread back to his obsession with corporate agricultural power. Or maybe agricultural corporate power. Alex's reply was relevant to the topic, so it stays. Other responses to Eric can be found in the 'Environmental' section. I've had to open his 'Monsanto' thread to find a home for these latest rants. The place of these posts may change again, as I think it is time we had a ranter's corner where all such contributions can be put.

[chris]

You know me - a sucker for any kind of argument or debate.

Oh no you're not

[Jon]

Oh no you're not


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

[gavin]

Folks

This thread is for discussing ways of making the forum a better place by providing space for rational debate on certain topics. Any post which mentions Monsanto or GM, or is a direct response to that, is now joining Eric's previous thread on the topic.

I rather like the idea of creating an explicit 'ranter's corner' so that all such posts can go there, leaving the 'Environmental' area for reasoned debate rather than the more hysterical stuff and the criticism of me.

Maybe I'll post more on this later - I'm cooking!

Gavin

[chris]

Eric, this thread is titled "possible forum changes". You have been going on about OGM's for a few posts now. In any other forum, this would be called going off topic. Going off topic is what this is all about. You are of course free to think and say what you like. About the topic of the thread . It's not what your idea is that matters, it's where you stick it.

[chris]

Oops. Now I'm gonna be accused of being cloned

[Jon]

I rather like the idea of creating an explicit 'ranter's corner'

Gavin

The position of that apostrophe is very telling re. the number of ranters you think there are on the forum!

[gavin]

In my defence, m'lud, perhaps I should point out that at any one point in time (on SBAi) there is only likely to be one and the others will rant at a slightly different time?

That didn't wash, did it? Oh well, I Googled for Speaker(')s(') Corner and found both options. I have to say that the Speakers' option was more common though, so I guess that I'll have to ... one more time ... say: 'Sorry!!'


PS Is that your psychology training coming to the fore?

[Jon]

Just grammar pedantry.
It's been so long since I studied psychology I can't remember any.

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Alex

There is actualy nothing wrong with the structure of this Forum. The problem lies with the Administrator and the core contributors who when presented with anything which is outside their accepted wisdom spectrum - will resort to measures which are aimed more at insulting and discrediting the offending material /author. Witness the inane, but quite vicious inuendo of the most recent contributuions.
E

[gavin]

That's one view that everything is fine (except the core contributers and the administrator of course!). All other views seem to suggest that the excellent discussion we used to have here needs help to thrive. We could attempt to drive up the quality in a special area where single topics are up for discussion at a time, where all thoughtful contributions are welcome and all excitable, but ill-thought out and conspiracy theory stuff moved away. Equally, the rather random and provocative posting across the site recently is disruptive to the normal atmosphere of the forum and needs better control. I am in discussion with fellow moderators about how to achieve that without upsetting too many people, and we are still listening to views brought forward here.

[gavin]

Of course it would just be a whole lot easier if I simply put Eric on moderation.

[Jon]

Hi Alex

There is actualy nothing wrong with the structure of this Forum. The problem lies with the Administrator and the core contributors who when presented with anything which is outside their accepted wisdom spectrum - will resort to measures which are aimed more at insulting and discrediting the offending material /author. Witness the inane, but quite vicious inuendo of the most recent contributuions.
E

Actually Eric there is only one poster who tends to attack the person rather than the argument and unfortunately it's you. More often than not the recipient of your unwanted attention is Gavin as you have history that goes way back.
Stick to the arguments and let them stand or fail on their own strength.
In an ideal world, use your own ability with words to make your case rather than cutting and pasting - generally from unreliable sources such as yesterday's NWO Observer site which houses the collected wisdom of David Icke amongst other conspiracy theorists.
Have you tried Google scholar for searching the internet? It cuts out a lot of the rubbish.
If you look at the top of your browser screen to where it says 'more' select this and scroll down to 'scholar'
This gives you a google search function which searches just the published research in a 'plethora' of journals.
You search in the normal way using key words or phrases.

Further replies from Eric and the responses to them can now be found in the 'Over the edge' sub-forum where provocative and other unwanted posts will be placed.