Ive started one thread on this site, in the astronomy and cosmology forum, that was moved to the "speculation" forum.

 

At its base, I do not have a problem with a thread being moved (which is essentially a form of censorship but that's OK) if the subject steps into the realm of "hey I've got a new idea or concept and I want to bounce it around". But there is a difference between discussing a new idea that is based on accepted mainstream science vs a pseudoscientific, conspiracy theorist, tin foil on head, Mayan calendar, 2012, 7 headed Revalations beast, fountain of youth discovered thread. Anyone with an IQ of 100 can sniff out the lunatics.

 

It becomes particularly annoying when your topic of fancy is one such as physics, astronomy, cosmology, etc. where the entire field requires a whole lot of "thought experimentation" in the first place...for a thread of that nature to be lumped with the 9/11 conspiracy theory threads is an insult.

 

My suggestion is that there should be one or more forums for "unconventional discussions of mainstream ideas" where at least the topics that get a lot of traffic like physics and perhaps evolutionary biology can be legitimately bantered about and not be lost in the shuffle of threads discussing preparations for the end of the world in December 2012.

 

Thanks for your time.

We have clear rules about what belongs where. Here's a link to what goes into speculations. Censorship would be to delete it. We don't delete it. We don't suppress it. We just categorize it.

 

Note that if you follow the rules of the Speculations forum, your average tinfoil hat junk does not belong there. It might at first end up there by accident (or because we're a friendly bunch of mods), but we have a trashcan for the really bad stuff.

 

Thank you for your suggestion.

There's also a set of guidelines for what gets moved and why

 

And yes, there is a difference between scientific speculation and crackpot science; the issue here is also a logistical one. Sorting would take more time and and the inevitable complaints would increase in frequency. But at the core, there's the commonality of needing a model and experimental data, and the additional rules of Speculations to which CaptainPanic linked affords the staff some leverage in making sure the discussion proceed properly. (Because we, in general, don't censor people and — despite the protestations of some — we don't ban people simply for posting an idea that challenges existing science.)