what do you prioritize currently that blocks a discussion about black holes, as you want those answers?

I primarily mean real life, plus whatever things I do choose to take time to comment on in my history. I put out a lot about black holes in comments last week and will do so again, maybe in post(s), but logistics exist.

Henry Robert is famous because Robert's Rules are the standard for how groups of people decide matters with relative fairness. It's based on Parliament and is used with slight changes by Congress. The point is any version of it can be and has been gamed. So we might have a surface consensus achieved by declaration of deliberative results, but it's only as good as its circumspection, and in Conspiracies we don't begin by taking any view for granted. Surface consensus is fine in most cases, and might work here, but the discussions are already demonstrating anarchy coding and less than serious attempts at consensus deliberation.

My mod style and its detractors are well-known. I wouldn't jump into a community to change its existing style, and unfortunately this one now has lots of anarchic style well established. So it's essential that those users who remember what it's been and want to keep that under new moderation are able to demonstrate that to the whole group of contributors, which is usually done by rough consensus even if Robert is totally ignored. And in the American Revolution decisive action by 3% can drive the rest and overcome forum-sliding and solipsism that manifest in larger percentages; but they did it by establishing consensus in pubs and churches.

The new mod team would here have great risk of censoring viewpoints while attempting only to regulate disruptive behavior. The rules are briefly (0) platform rules, (1) respect, (2) no tool abuse, (3) no sliding. (Note to new mod: Those need to be rightly reflected in options available when someone reports, a very easy fix.) [Add: the sidebar "disclaimer" added (4) quality, (5) no "trolling", (6) no stalking, (7) no spam, (8) honesty, (9) no violence; looks like the disclaimer, which I missed, is the source of the justification for most actions.] We could squeeze a lot of speech and logic regulation into "respect" but it would probably need elaboration before long; and if there's no rule about NSFW content it might be asked about before long too. I think that longer rules make it easier for moderation to be circumspect and transparent, but I wouldn't want to change them without input from the past mod logs and from the current community. This week several people have complained about the behavior of one Communities contributor or another, often suggesting moderation; many of these cases press that risk of censorship and, in a free-speech forum, also have the risk of ongoing meta deliberation that detracts from the work of Theorizing.

I did mean math. Arrow's impossibility theorem says, if there are at least three alternatives for voting, then there is no social welfare function satisfying all of three proposed conditions of rational choice, and was anticipated by Condorcet. History shows its application to politics; but that basically means that, anytime a self-structuring community arises with high truth-seeking focus, there are easy, asymmetrical ways to shove it off its focus, and so a critical mass of focus renewal is important for longterm stability. If people stay focused on truth then consensus is easy; conversely, in a mixed, open-contribution society, staying focused only arises by grace and is preserved by voluntary self-regulation, which is not easy. Voting is sus, well, everywhere, and in this country since its founding; we accept the numbers but they don't mean much, and many recognize that rough consensus is stronger than impassive manipulated vote totals.

So, one math application is, if we are beasts and humans, how do we as anons work out how to exclude the beasts? Mathematically, it's a giant game of Amogus and greater than 1/3 ratio of "beasts" can win the game. That requires strategy and not everyone brings strategy to the table (but the "beasts" can be counted on to be doing so).

If you didn't follow about collectivism, it'll become obvious in due time, it doesn't need to clutter up the meta threads. And I'm not trying to be oblique but to prioritize topics. More important is your hope of "crush these topics through a debate". It's great to have high hopes for deliberation to result in peace. You are here because you resolved not to underestimate the enemy, though? I might meme: "You hope because deliberation is good, I hope because deliberation cannot ultimately be effectively used for evil, we are not the same." I absolutely affirm the idea that the Truth (which I believe to be Christianity as God-revealed) will conquer; but we are in a place among many who have many skepticisms about Truth, and we benefit by that. The uniting banner of Conspiracy Theorists is not known to be Christianity (it might be on Mars Hill), and it can be Truth ("out there") but that needs to be commonly conceived and not just "Truthy".

The redemption of a community from anarchy to order is a noble and involved quest!

what do you prioritize currently that blocks a discussion about black holes, as you want those answers?

I primarily mean real life, plus whatever things I do choose to take time to comment on in my history. I put out a lot about black holes in comments last week and will do so again, maybe in post(s), but logistics exist.

Henry Robert is famous because Robert's Rules are the standard for how groups of people decide matters with relative fairness. It's based on Parliament and is used with slight changes by Congress. The point is any version of it can be and has been gamed. So we might have a surface consensus achieved by declaration of deliberative results, but it's only as good as its circumspection, and in Conspiracies we don't begin by taking any view for granted. Surface consensus is fine in most cases, and might work here, but the discussions are already demonstrating anarchy coding and less than serious attempts at consensus deliberation.

My mod style and its detractors are well-known. I wouldn't jump into a community to change its existing style, and unfortunately this one now has lots of anarchic style well established. So it's essential that those users who remember what it's been and want to keep that under new moderation are able to demonstrate that to the whole group of contributors, which is usually done by rough consensus even if Robert is totally ignored. And in the American Revolution decisive action by 3% can drive the rest and overcome forum-sliding and solipsism that manifest in larger percentages; but they did it by establishing consensus in pubs and churches.

The new mod team would here have great risk of censoring viewpoints while attempting only to regulate disruptive behavior. The rules are briefly (0) platform rules, (1) respect, (2) no tool abuse, (3) no sliding. (Note to new mod: Those need to be rightly reflected in options available when someone reports, a very easy fix.) We could squeeze a lot of speech and logic regulation into "respect" but it would probably need elaboration before long; and if there's no rule about NSFW content it might be asked about before long too. I think that longer rules make it easier for moderation to be circumspect and transparent, but I wouldn't want to change them without input from the past mod logs and from the current community. This week several people have complained about the behavior of one Communities contributor or another, often suggesting moderation; many of these cases press that risk of censorship and, in a free-speech forum, also have the risk of ongoing meta deliberation that detracts from the work of Theorizing.

I did mean math. Arrow's impossibility theorem says, if there are at least three alternatives for voting, then there is no social welfare function satisfying all of three proposed conditions of rational choice, and was anticipated by Condorcet. History shows its application to politics; but that basically means that, anytime a self-structuring community arises with high truth-seeking focus, there are easy, asymmetrical ways to shove it off its focus, and so a critical mass of focus renewal is important for longterm stability. If people stay focused on truth then consensus is easy; conversely, in a mixed, open-contribution society, staying focused only arises by grace and is preserved by voluntary self-regulation, which is not easy. Voting is sus, well, everywhere, and in this country since its founding; we accept the numbers but they don't mean much, and many recognize that rough consensus is stronger than impassive manipulated vote totals.

So, one math application is, if we are beasts and humans, how do we as anons work out how to exclude the beasts? Mathematically, it's a giant game of Amogus and greater than 1/3 ratio of "beasts" can win the game. That requires strategy and not everyone brings strategy to the table (but the "beasts" can be counted on to be doing so).

If you didn't follow about collectivism, it'll become obvious in due time, it doesn't need to clutter up the meta threads. And I'm not trying to be oblique but to prioritize topics. More important is your hope of "crush these topics through a debate". It's great to have high hopes for deliberation to result in peace. You are here because you resolved not to underestimate the enemy, though? I might meme: "You hope because deliberation is good, I hope because deliberation cannot ultimately be effectively used for evil, we are not the same." I absolutely affirm the idea that the Truth (which I believe to be Christianity as God-revealed) will conquer; but we are in a place among many who have many skepticisms about Truth, and we benefit by that. The uniting banner of Conspiracy Theorists is not known to be Christianity (it might be on Mars Hill), and it can be Truth ("out there") but that needs to be commonly conceived and not just "Truthy".

The redemption of a community from anarchy to order is a noble and involved quest!