OK, here you go; but as some others have indicated am not at all sure that this is a necessary exercise.
& hopefully Ken doesn't object to a little gentle teasing re the Freudian typo at the start of his second para? & moreover whatever happened to 2 (see the 0-5 scale.)? We have used this number with some success for quite a long time now, surely there is no need to dispense with it altogether? (though those of a conspiratorial bent may remember the problems its square root caused for the Pythagorean Brotherhood) *Frequency of posting *F1. __1__ No more than one posting per person per day F2. ____ No more than one posting per person per week *Information / Question / Opinion *I1. __0__ All post must contain new information (and not simply express an opinion or ask a question) I2. _3___ Questions only allowed where where the answers are not easily found by reading the literature or googling I3. _4___ Opinion statements allowed only if it is clear that they are well-informed and factual assumptions underlying the opinions are sound *Scope *S1. _4___ All posts must directly pertain to either climate science, climate policy, or intentional intervention in the climate system S2. ____ All posts must directly pertain to intentional intervention in the climate system S3. _0___ All posts must directly pertain to solar radiation management and related options (i.e., not carbon dioxide removal and related options) S4. ___4_ This forum SHOULD be used to discuss whether anthropogenic global warming is a real phenomenon or not (nor should it be used to discuss reality of biological evolution, plate tectonics, etc) S5. __4__ This forum SHOULD be used to discuss proximity to tipping points, climate thresholds, etc S6. __4__ Post containing new information should have a more relaxed criterion (i.e., can be about general climate science), but posts expressing opinions are asking questions should have a higher scope standard and closely related to intentional intervention in the climate system. *Content *C1. __0__ Posts should be allowed even if they contain content that the moderators believe to be patently and demonstrably false. C2. __4__ No post should be allowed where the primary purpose is to communicate to single person (i.e., request a pdf from someone etc). Such posts should be directed to that individual. *Formal *F1. __4__ All posts must reflect the subject line (i.e., posts should be rejected if they respond to a discussion with an off-topic or tangential remark; instead such posts should start a new discussion) F2. __3__ All posts should include a "real name" (recognizing that there will be no way to verify these names) *Additional guideline: (not part of poll) * A1. 4 No post may make an *ad hominem* attack or make assumptions about someone else's motivation Please provide your suggestions for additional guidelines. NOTE: This is not a one-person/one-vote democracy. I will consider all input but give more weight to comments from working scientists, policy professionals, etc. You may reply either directly to me ([email protected]), or reply to the entire group if you want your views to be broadly known. On Dec 12, 11:50 pm, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: > This group could potentially serve many different communities. However, the > signal to noise ratio has been getting relatively low lately and thus the > group has been of diminishing utility to some important communities. > > I will new guidelines starting 1 Jan 2010, with rejected non-abusive emails > forwarded to [email protected]. > > *Which of these guidelines would you like to see strongly enforced in the > moderation of the geoengineering google group? > > Please rate these on a 0 to 5 scale: > > 0 = strongly disagree, do not use this criterion > 1 = only apply this criterion in cases of gross abuse > 3 = weakly enforce this criterion only in extreme cases > 4 = generally apply this criterion, with some exceptions in special cases > 5 = strongly agree, apply this criterion without exception > * > *Frequency of posting > *F1. ____ No more than one posting per person per day > F2. ____ No more than one posting per person per week > > *Information / Question / Opinion > *I1. ____ All post must contain new information (and not simply express an > opinion or ask a question) > I2. ____ Questions only allowed where where the answers are not easily found > by reading the literature or googling > I3. ____ Opinion statements allowed only if it is clear that they are > well-informed and factual assumptions underlying the opinions are sound > > *Scope > *S1. ____ All posts must directly pertain to either climate science, climate > policy, or intentional intervention in the climate system > S2. ____ All posts must directly pertain to intentional intervention in the > climate system > S3. ____ All posts must directly pertain to solar radiation management and > related options (i.e., not carbon dioxide removal and related options) > S4. ____ This forum SHOULD be used to discuss whether anthropogenic global > warming is a real phenomenon or not (nor should it be used to discuss > reality of biological evolution, plate tectonics, etc) > S5. ____ This forum SHOULD be used to discuss proximity to tipping points, > climate thresholds, etc > S6. ____ Post containing new information should have a more relaxed > criterion (i.e., can be about general climate science), but posts expressing > opinions are asking questions should have a higher scope standard and > closely related to intentional intervention in the climate system. > > *Content > *C1. ____ Posts should be allowed even if they contain content that the > moderators believe to be patently and demonstrably false. > C2. ____ No post should be allowed where the primary purpose is to > communicate to single person (i.e., request a pdf from someone etc). Such > posts should be directed to that individual. > > *Formal > *F1. ____ All posts must reflect the subject line (i.e., posts should be > rejected if they respond to a discussion with an off-topic or tangential > remark; instead such posts should start a new discussion) > F2. ____ All posts should include a "real name" (recognizing that there will > be no way to verify these names) > > *Additional guideline: (not part of poll) > * > A1. No post may make an *ad hominem* attack or make assumptions about > someone else's motivation > > Please provide your suggestions for additional guidelines. > > NOTE: This is not a one-person/one-vote democracy. I will consider all input > but give more weight to comments from working scientists, policy > professionals, etc. > > You may reply either directly to me ([email protected]), or > reply to the entire group if you want your views to be broadly known. > > Best, > > Ken > > ___________________________________________________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > [email protected]http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab > +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
