New CT Moderators

humanji

FROM MIJU: I've split this topic guys as TBH it well warrants a thread of its own

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I dont have to Agree with Bonkey to respect his POV, its well thought out and well presented in a fairly neutral tone, and often adds a lot of fuel to a debate.

Cant say the same for King Mob, actually even Diogeness seems less petty in comparison




no but like I said why are we being held up as fair game for all to ridicule, there are things I would like to discus but theres no point as we'd get two or three posts in before it descended into them mire at the moment, feck I've tried to start serious threads but no one seems bothered, the CT'ers dont want to put themselves out there for ridicule and why should they, this is supposed to be a safe haven for the more out there theories, its not its purile amusement for smallminded trolls

But this isn't meant to be any sort of haven at all. It's simply a forum to discuss conspiracy theories. The charter doesn't specify that you have to agree or disagree with them only that you at least act with a bit of civility to each other. If someone is trolling then report the post and let the mods deal with it. DubTony showed everyone exactly what you don't do, ie have a hissy fit, embarrass yourself and get yourself banned. And why did he do it? Because someone asked him for evidence (which I might point out is required when you make allegations against people, according to the charter).

There's no point bringing up the religion forums as their charters specify that the forums aren't for debunking their religion, but even then the Christianity and Athiesm forums give a little leeway.

If CTer's want to stop anyone trying to debunk a theory, then petition the mods to change the charter. I honestly can't see it happening, but you never know until you try.

Mahatma coat

OK fair point, but, any decent theory needs a bit of time, space and input to be fully fleshed out, this don't get the chance to happen here, self righteous arseholes shoot them down before they've even had a chance, this has to stop, people have ideas/theories these theories don't come into the world fully formed they are generally just a series of critical observations, the idea (well at least as I see it) of this forum is to give likeminded posters a chance to discuss the pros/cons/ramifications of these theories in a comfortable and supportive environment, tis like someone smashin up the Wrightbrothers plane and sayin

'Man will never Fly, FACT'

thats the mentality I am opposed to the agrandisingselfrighteousness that pops up here every now and again, I feel confident that King Mob will get bored and piss off in a month or so and move on to his/her next pethate, we will still be here

AND WE WILL STILL BE RIGHT:D

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK fair point, but, any decent theory needs a bit of time, space and input to be fully fleshed out, this don't get the chance to happen here, self righteous arseholes shoot them down before they've even had a chance, this has to stop, people have ideas/theories these theories don't come into the world fully formed they are generally just a series of critical observations, the idea (well at least as I see it) of this forum is to give likeminded posters a chance to discuss the pros/cons/ramifications of these theories in a comfortable and supportive environment, tis like someone smashin up the Wrightbrothers plane and sayin

'Man will never Fly, FACT'

thats the mentality I am opposed to the agrandisingselfrighteousness that pops up here every now and again, I feel confident that King Mob will get bored and piss off in a month or so and move on to his/her next pethate, we will still be here

AND WE WILL STILL BE RIGHT:D

The difference is that the right brothers actually had a chance of flying (basing their designs on working gliders of the time). Conspiracy theories are more like a lead balloon.
Most of the theories that where called crazy (helio-centric relativity etc.) where based on empirical observation. same can't be said for CTs.
But hey if they are right you'd be able to prove them with logic and evidence and you won't have to rely on personal attacks on critics.

oscarBravo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

...any decent theory needs a bit of time, space and input to be fully fleshed out, this don't get the chance to happen here, self righteous arseholes shoot them down before they've even had a chance...

By "shoot them down", you mean "point out that they have no basis in logic, reason and/or fact", right?

I'm not sure why you're so hostile to logic and reason.

EuFatCat

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure why you're so hostile to logic and reason.

This from a fella who believes in global warming. :rolleyes:

bonkey

meglome wrote: »

I have in the past wondered was Bonkey an awful superior pain in the arse to be around in person

Totally.

I can't f***ing stand me....

miju

humanji wrote: »

If CTer's want to stop anyone trying to debunk a theory, then petition the mods to change the charter. I honestly can't see it happening, but you never know until you try.

Well I for one wouldnt be open to doing that. but if the community wants feel free to open a poll on the subject.

though personally i feel such a decision would be fundamentally wrong

astrofool

It would be fundamentally wrong, if a CT'r doesn't want their theory to be dubunked, then don't post it on a public forum where other people can debunk it. Simple really.

humanji

miju wrote: »

Well I for one wouldnt be open to doing that. but if the community wants feel free to open a poll on the subject.

though personally i feel such a decision would be fundamentally wrong

That's what I assumed, but to be honest something should be done. It is getting fairly hostile in here for no good reason. If the forum took the form of,

CTer: "This is what I believe"
Debunker: "Well is it posible that you could be wrong because of X"

instead of:

CTer: "Stupid sheeple, don't you see that this is happening now?"
Debunker: "Stupid CTer, of course it's not!"

I mean, there has to be some fundemental way of changing the way people approach this forum. CTer's have to accept that debunkers may well not agree with them and vice versa. If people could try and make a concerted effort to actual not rile up the opposition and discuss things instead of arguing them, it would lead to a much less combative place.

Granted I've no idea how to do this, I'm sure one of you will come up with something.

Gordon

So logic and reason and questioning is something that conspiracy theorists don't like? Wow! I guess I thought that that was the case but never thought a CTer would say it honestly and openly.

bonkey

humanji wrote: »

Granted I've no idea how to do this, I'm sure one of you will come up with something.

<tongue-in-cheek>

I've heard of this concept called "moderation", backed by a "charter", where you lay out what is considered acceptable behaviour and punish those who don't abide by the rules.

Its a radical idea, and perhaps a bit too Big Brotherish for some, but it may not be entirely without merit

</tongue-in-cheek>

humanji

If only everyone would read and abide by the charter...

miju

bonkey wrote: »

I've heard of this concept called "moderation", backed by a "charter", where you lay out what is considered acceptable behaviour and punish those who don't abide by the rules.

<tongue-in-cheek>
I've also heard of this thing called a "report button" because the charter is perfectly fine as it it
</tongue-in-cheek>

though seriously we do need another mod here TBH as I can't keep tabs on the lot of you by myself. I'm struggling to think of a good candidate though TBH

Mahatma coat

Casey for Mod :D:D

meglome

bonkey wrote: »

Totally.

I can't f***ing stand me....

I only said I wondered

Mahatma coat

From Charter wrote:

Edited by miju to add

Making the natives restless
- This is a catch-all rule for general trolling, bitching and similar. Certain posters have an ability to piss off large quanties of regulars on here. If a moderator feels that said poster is doing this intentionally or is the cause of the mess, then the poster can and will be banned. If this poster was being goaded by others, then they'll be the ones getting banned. This rule will hopefully put an end to the bitching going on in here of late.

yesh, I've heard rumors that there was a charter

trentf

'King_Mob, I've news for you. If there was enough proof, these things wouldn't be conspiracy theories. They'd be conspiracy fact and you'd have nothing to argue about.'

Not really, it wouldn't be conspiracy fact, it is a conspiracy fact. thats the whole point the elite owns the media so why would they publish or make it a matter of fact their agenda? that wouldn't make much sense now would it?

In fact they do make it a matter of fact every night on the news its just your too blind too open your eyes and read between the lines

bonkey

miju wrote: »

though seriously we do need another mod here TBH as I can't keep tabs on the lot of you by myself. I'm struggling to think of a good candidate though TBH

I'd do it...but I reckon that'd be in violation of the "making the natives restless" part of the charter

miju

well all i'll say is at the mo your the front runner bonkey but we will see.

Kernel

miju wrote: »

well all i'll say is at the mo your the front runner bonkey but we will see.

That'd make sense. If you want to kill the forum.

There's a huge imbalance on here, and that's the reason I post more on abovetopsecret than here. This is an unbelievably hostile environment for those interested in discussing conspiracy theories. I never got an answer as to why the forum is hidden away in hosted/soc alongside the Irish Skeptics society when another forum like Paranormal is under the main Rec directory. If I was to choose another mod, it would be mahatma, in order to balance out the ****e that goes on in here.

oscarBravo

bonkey for god.




Mod.







I meant mod.

Nick_oliveri

Hmm, i think there should be a neutral mod, one who doesn't take it personally. Bonkey or humanji TBH. Thanks the two of you for not being aggressive in your posts.

humanji wrote:

I mean, there has to be some fundemental way of changing the way people approach this forum. CTer's have to accept that debunkers may well not agree with them and vice versa. If people could try and make a concerted effort to actual not rile up the opposition and discuss things instead of arguing them, it would lead to a much less combative place.

QFT. Well said.

Mahatma coat

Thanks Kernell, but my vote is to Bonkey as well, although I do believe we should have 2 new mods, one from each camp, Bonkey and Casey(what is he callin himself thisweek??) for the mods

Kernel

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Thanks Kernell, but my vote is to Bonkey as well, although I do believe we should have 2 new mods, one from each camp, Bonkey and Casey(what is he callin himself thisweek??) for the mods

Bonkey is a pleasant adversary, to be sure, but he clearly has a skeptical compulsion against the very notion of conspiracy theories. This would further imbalance the forum imo. Somebody interested in conspiracy theories would be nice. Art Bell maybe?

Mahatma coat

thats why I said we needed 2 Mods, nothing against Miju but he dosent seem to spend a lot of time on the board or input much into any of the threads, tis quite possible he has an actual life :eek:

Bonkey is about as close as one could get to a neutral observer, however he does have skeptical leanings, this could be balanced out by makin one of the truly Crazy MoFo's of the board the other Mod.

Looks like We'll just have to consult the Lizzards to see what the masterplan is :D:D

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

Bonkey is a pleasant adversary, to be sure, but he clearly has a skeptical compulsion against the very notion of conspiracy theories. This would further imbalance the forum imo.

If you don't mind me asking...why would my tendencies - or those of any mod - imbalance the forum? To suggest so is to suggest that I - or any mod - would enforce their rules more harshly on those they disagree with, and give those they agree with more scope.

By this

Somebody interested in conspiracy theories would be nice.

You mean like miju?

Maybe you don't recall, but I butted heads with him over the Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theory, if not over other subjects as well.

Perhaps by "interested" you mean "partaking actively in discussion on"? In which case, then why don't I count? I'm quite active in this forum...surely that shows interest?

Perhaps what you really want to say is that you'd like a mod chosen from those who actively post "pro" conspiracy theories. When that's coupled with your original suggestion that suggests that mods are biased towards their tendencies, though, it almost seems that what you want is a forum where those supporting conspiracy theories get more leeway then those who oppose them.

This, incidentally, is exactly the response I expected (without knowing who'd post it) when I said that my being picked for the job would "make the natives restless". I'm sure there's no end of posters who agree wholeheartedly with you, and who think (like I suspect you do) that this response of mine is exactly the reason I shouldn't be mod.

Me? I'd like to see a forum where both sides could engage polite discussion. As a mod, I'd try to enforce that as I did when I was a politics mod...by dealing with the people who show they can't engage in polite discussion. Of course, CT isn't Politics...so obviously a somewhat "lighter hand" would be needed here, but the principle is still the same.

If you see the problem with this forum that the skeptics are allowed "free reign" to question conspiracy theories, then I'm not the type of mod you'd want. I believe they should have free reign to question conspiracy theories.

On the other hand, if you believe that the problem is that people on both sides are getting far too personal and/or abusive in general....then we agree on what the problem is.

As for a second mod...I don't side with Mahatma with the argument that we should have a "crazy mofo". There already is a "pro conspiracy" mod. If you want a "pro-conspiracy, actively posting mod", then I'd side with your own suggestion here.

Mahatma for mod.

I'd support your idea of Mahatma, personally.

Nick_oliveri

Hmm, tis interesting your proposal. Maybe a trial run?

If it were the case where there was no opposition on this forum i wouldn't post here or think about lurking in the slightest.

Where the **** has Diogenes gone? I miss him.
Edit: ahh he lives.http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055417373

meglome

Hey I do like Mahatma's postings generally (not the Jewish stuff, you did yourself no favours there imho) but I'd choose Bonkey for pure use of sense and logic in his postings and because he gets so involved in the discussion.

miju

Mahatma coat wrote: »

thats why I said we needed 2 Mods, nothing against Miju but he dosent seem to spend a lot of time on the board or input much into any of the threads, tis quite possible he has an actual life :eek:

miju is never far away from these forums let me assure you of that I don't really post anymore but do read the forums daily and still maintain my avid interest in CTs.

TBH while I used to be 100% pro CTs I've moved alot more into the middle ground these days mainly due to reading alot of excellent arguments on this forum (as it's essential for a true theorist to maintain an open mind at all times and see from both sides of the argument )

Anyways I digress. Like I said I'd like bonkey to be co-mod as I beleive he has the credentials. Also aware of how the natives can be it mightn't be a bad idea for mahatma to come on board too.

That way we would have a pro CT , anti CT and a more neutral CT mod. Which I hope would keep all happy. Of course all would have to be OK'd by admins but going from previous correspondance a couple of months ago I'd say this would not be a problem.

Anyways, talk about bringing a thread completely off topic (just split it there ).

So what say you all to the suggestion?

Gordon

bonkey and Mahatma imo.

oscarBravo

Should it be moved out of Hosted? If so, to what category? Soc?

JoeTheDumber

oscarBravo wrote: »

Should it be moved out of Hosted? If so, to what category? Soc?

It's alright where it is, well away from jumped up clowns like yourself.

Gordon

JoeTheDumber wrote: »

It's alright where it is, well away from jumped up clowns like yourself.

Stunning logic.

oscarBravo

Casey, when I get those grant cheques you keep claiming I'm in receipt of, I faithfully promise never to cat-ban you again.

JoeTheDumber

Gordon wrote: »

Stunning logic.

You know exactly what I am getting at. Look at the Politics forum, I assume at this stage everyone has been banned. A bit like the EU fellas, only one argument is allowed.

JoeTheDumber

oscarBravo wrote: »

Casey, when I get those grant cheques you keep claiming I'm in receipt of, I faithfully promise never to cat-ban you again.

A quick Google search was all it took, and I would not go so low as to say anymore.

oscarBravo

JoeTheDumber wrote: »

You know exactly what I am getting at. Look at the Politics forum, I assume at this stage everyone has been banned. A bit like the EU fellas, only one argument is allowed.

Yup, I ban everyone I disagree with. I'm the only poster on boards.ie that isn't currently banned from Politics.

JoeTheDumber wrote: »

A quick Google search was all it took, and I would not go so low as to say anymore.

Ah go on, you know you want to.

JoeTheDumber

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yup, I ban everyone I disagree with. I'm the only poster on boards.ie that isn't currently banned from Politics.

You got it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah go on, you know you want to.

Unlike most people in todays society, I try and keep some limits to my activities.

oscarBravo

JoeTheDumber wrote: »

Unlike most people in todays society, I try and keep some limits to my activities.

Yes, dear.

bonkey

JoeTheDumber wrote: »

A quick Google search was all it took, and I would not go so low as to say anymore.

You see proving that you're not making **** up as "going so low" ????

Interesting standards...

6th

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Bonkey is about as close as one could get to a neutral observer, however he does have skeptical leanings, this could be balanced out by makin one of the truly Crazy MoFo's of the board the other Mod.

Hi.

JoeTheDumber

bonkey wrote: »

You see proving that you're not making **** up as "going so low" ????

Interesting standards...

There are three sides on a coin.

humanji

JoeTheDumber wrote: »

There are three sides on a coin.

Many more depending on which curency you use.

Mahatma coat

Ok, I'd be up for it, if Bonkey is.

might bring some order to the thing.

Or I could end up turnin into a power crazy Lizzzard :D:D

miju

righto admins have been notified so hopefully they'll mod you guys quickly as I'm away for the weekend

Run_to_da_hills

JoeTheDumber wrote: »

You know exactly what I am getting at. Look at the Politics forum, I assume at this stage everyone has been banned. A bit like the EU fellas, only one argument is allowed.

LOL

humanji

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Ok, I'd be up for it, if Bonkey is.

might bring some order to the thing.

Or I could end up turnin into a power crazy Lizzzard :D:D

Or even end up turning Bonkey into one!!!

Mahatma coat

Just out of Curiosity, Do we Get Coke and Hookers too, or is that just the AH Mods?

Run_to_da_hills

humanji wrote: »

Many more depending on which curency you use.

What if its CASHLESS :eek:

humanji

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

What if its CASHLESS :eek:

It depends on the chape of the chip.

Diogenes

Sorry been away due to RT for the last while.

Can I just add my tuppence worth, on some forums it's considered that a Mod's decision is final, if you object to that decision the other Mod's on the forum will wash their hands and say "take it to the helpdesk/feedback yadda yadda yadda" Would both our new mod's (if approved) agree to let other users appeal to the other new Mod if said user disagree with this Mod.

Put simply if Mahatma banned me/ deleted my post/edited it, could I appeal to Bonkey and could Bonkey intervene?