Feedback and Proposals

6th

Ok folks, obviously thinks are changing a bit here and I'd like to get an idea of what people expect from this forum.

Can people post (without singling out other posters or posting insults/abuse) what it is they want from this forum. What do you like about it? What dont you like about it? How can we improve it?

Some posters post utter crap without a shred of proof (not even a google vid) and then when questioned refuse to answer.

I think if you aren't prepared to back up claims then you should loose posting rights for a while.

humanji

6th wrote:

Ok folks, obviously thinks are changing a bit here and I'd like to get an idea of what people expect from this forum.

Can people post (without singling out other posters or posting insults/abuse) what it is they want from this forum. What do you like about it? What dont you like about it? How can we improve it?

Needs more cowbell.

Deleted User wrote:

Some posters post utter crap without a shred of proof (not even a google vid) and then when questioned refuse to answer.

I think if you aren't prepared to back up claims then you should loose posting rights for a while.

To be fair, it's a conspiracy theory forum, so there's obviously going to be no proof (otherwise it'll be fact). And nobody likes being told they're wrong.

Many who have posted about their various conspiracies simply ignore anyone who questions them. The best thing to do is just ignore them. Discuss the matter with those willing to talk about it. When someone is trying to force an answer out or another person, it quickly degenerates into insults.

espinolman

I think the idea that you should not post something here without evidence or proof is a very bad idea , because some posters might have ingenius theories' and if they had to back their theories' up with evidence well that would be very sad .

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

because some posters might have ingenius theories' and if they had to back their theories' up with evidence well that would be very sad .

Creative writing forum is around here somewhere.....

humanji

humanji wrote: »

Needs more cowbell.



To be fair, it's a conspiracy theory forum, so there's obviously going to be no proof (otherwise it'll be fact). And nobody likes being told they're wrong.

Many who have posted about their various conspiracies simply ignore anyone who questions them. The best thing to do is just ignore them. Discuss the matter with those willing to talk about it. When someone is trying to force an answer out or another person, it quickly degenerates into insults.

Aye, there will always be a bias towards to the CTers, but if people are allowed post whatever they want (George Soros is a drug baron, the Jews are poisoning the water, the moon powers my car) and then fail to even attampt to prove it, you will drive away non CTers and you will end up with threads with lots of rambling and ranting, but not discussion. Essentially, you have a system of inherent self selection bias, but a bit of modding will sort that, and will make the place more attractive to non CTers.

Also fair play to 6th for kicking off a discussion like this. Even it goes nowhere, its positive to see.

espinolman

Deleted User wrote: »

Creative writing forum is around here somewhere.....

OK SO THATS IT I AM NOT TAKING INSULTS LIKE THAT , AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT I AM GOING TO DO ABOUT IT , I AM NOT GOING TO POST HERE FOR ANOTHER 2 WEEKS IN PROTEST .

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

OK SO THATS IT I AM NOT TAKING INSULTS LIKE THAT , AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT I AM GOING TO DO ABOUT IT , I AM NOT GOING TO POST HERE FOR ANOTHER 2 WEEKS IN PROTEST .

Well. You got me. How did you know you could hurt me like that?

jonbravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Aye, there will always be a bias towards to the CTers, but if people are allowed post whatever they want (George Soros is a drug baron, the Jews are poisoning the water, the moon powers my car) and then fail to even attampt to prove it, you will drive away non CTers and you will end up with threads with lots of rambling and ranting, but not discussion. Essentially, you have a system of inherent self selection bias, but a bit of modding will sort that, and will make the place more attractive to non CTers.

You have to have an opinion before you have a discussion thats worth thinking about!! but i think posters should state that its just there own opinions, and PROOF to why they have this opinon regarding a CT.

6th

espinolman wrote: »

OK SO THATS IT I AM NOT TAKING INSULTS LIKE THAT , AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT I AM GOING TO DO ABOUT IT , I AM NOT GOING TO POST HERE FOR ANOTHER 2 WEEKS IN PROTEST .

If a little comment like that gets such a reaction from you then maybe you should step away from the computer for a while. Thicker skin. Get some.

Seriously address the topic of this thread and we might get somewhere. The idea is to make this a place that both sides want to use.

Diogenes

I think the concept of burden of proof should hold true. If you make a claim th onus is on you to support that claim.

The classic example is because X is a jew clearly he is a Zionist. A person's ethic or religion background should not automatically define their political philosophy.

There is casual racism on this forum, which boils down to "Jew = evil NWO". It's cheap and nasty, if you disagree with someone's actions or views, challenge them, don't engage in cheap racism.

I'd like to see an end to accusations about Zionists, or childish euphemisms like "Lizzzards" if you think someone is against the rest of mankind, argue the facts, not their ethic background.

6th

Deleted User wrote: »

Also fair play to 6th for kicking off a discussion like this. Even it goes nowhere, its positive to see.

Cheers. I think its needed.

Put everyone here in a pub together and I pretty much guarantee you we'd all have a laugh. I've been posting what some might consider crazy stuff on this site for a few years now and yet I'm able to have chats and get on with some of the diehard skeptics.

Theres no need for the amount of bitching and snipping that goes on in this forum so lets see what we can do about it.

6th

Diogenes wrote: »

I think the concept of burden of proof should hold true. If you make a claim th onus is on you to support that claim.

I agree with this. On the other side some people post their beliefs and theories/ideas - I see people jumping on these with demands for proof when they should just ask why the person believes it.

People pointing out interesting ideas is great but shoving those ideas down people throats as fact is not.

Kama

With respect, asking for proof on a CT forum is kinda like asking for love and faithfulness from a Lady of the Night...pointless, and not what you came for.

+1 to 6th on asking why someone has the belief being much more interesting than demanding proof.

Evidence is great, proof almost irrelevant...jumping up and down crying 'proof' when someone is talking about why the Sidhe are colluding with Great Cthulu to cause a run on the Euro...seems more rhetorical than anything else. Tbh, anything that had a sufficient standard of proof (flagship papers, peer-journaled etc) would not be on the forum.

jonbravo

there should be a ban on the word 'proof':D

Kama

Kama wrote: »

With respect, asking for proof on a CT forum is kinda like asking for love and faithfulness from a Lady of the Night...pointless, and not what you came for.

+1 to 6th on asking why someone has the belief being much more interesting than demanding proof.

Evidence is great, proof almost irrelevant...jumping up and down crying 'proof' when someone is talking about why the Sidhe are colluding with Great Cthulu to cause a run on the Euro...seems more rhetorical than anything else. Tbh, anything that had a sufficient standard of proof (flagship papers, peer-journaled etc) would not be on the forum.

Seriously though, no proof or evidence, take it creative writing.

People come on here and post pure ****e sometimes. However, often people post quite interesting material and have some form of evidence. I don't believe most of it, but it still makes interesting and entertaining reading.

However, I was pm'ed by a mod here (current, not MC) who said essentially that you can slag off any group you want here as long as you don't slag off a poster. That, IMHO, is not on. If you want to vent your spleen, get a blog. If you want to make up stories with no evidence or proof, go to creative writing. Because that is exactly what you are doing. You may even learn to make up better stories there.

jonbravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Seriously though, no proof or evidence, take it creative writing.

People come on here and post pure ****e sometimes. However, often people post quite interesting material and have some form of evidence. I don't believe most of it, but it still makes interesting and entertaining reading.

However, I was pm'ed by a mod here (current, not MC) who said essentially that you can slag off any group you want here as long as you don't slag off a poster. That, IMHO, is not on. If you want to vent your spleen, get a blog. If you want to make up stories with no evidence or proof, go to creative writing. Because that is exactly what you are doing. You may even learn to make up better stories there.

if a thread doesnt come with some kind of evidence i feel relates to the post, i take it that, its of the posters opinion ... and not proof, as it is most come with valid evidence to call them ct ... BUT creative writing or not,opinions/ct's are storys in a way,just my opinion:)

Kama

Seriously though, no proof or evidence, take it creative writing.

Problem then being, define what is acceptable standard of proof, or more plausibly, evidence. Proof is unattainable in science proper (at least if you swing Popperian) so the request for it in CT is somewhat risible, to me anyway, while evidence is more of a possible condition.

Taking the problematic anti-semitic issue, for one side the ADL is a credible source, for another they are partisan propaganda, with presumed Mossad links. Same with anything else. A standard orthodox source almost by its nature won't be accepted, or can be easily rejected, by a dissident, much as a dissident source won't be accepted by a orthodox poster. It's quite symmetrical.

Proof requires faith, the credo in credibility, and this faith, broadly speaking, won't be there, on either side.

On slagging groups, imho, any CT implies an enemy, someone (or multitentacular Thing) doing something nasty to someone, it's the nature of the discourse, wther the enemy is Zionist, Islamic, or Cthulu-capitalist. I'm unsure if accusation = slagging here; if it does, then you're talking about annihilating the forum by moderation; a conspiracy requires a group, who are accused of a wrong. This (to me) is somewhat distinct from a racist screed of Stormfront standard...

Kernel

+1 for the 'why do you believe this' rather than 'show me definitive proof' bull****.

I think we need to get a handle on the mutual masturbation society - aka the 'Thanks' button clickers. After certain posts we get the usual crew thanking each other, without fail. I know the thanks button has caused consternation across boards, but for me the button should be used when someone provides you with something that you asked for, or is helpful (eg. an interesting video.. or an interesting thread being started).

Time Magazine

Of course there's no proof for any CT, but there's a huge difference between a plausible, coherent theory with some evidence and "THE JEWS ARE STEALING OUR INTERNETS!"

Unfortunately, about 90% of the CTs on this forum are the latter.

Sofa_King Good

Just my thoughts,

I have no problem with being corrected, I welcome it, even when I am wrong.

The whole CT area is for me at least more of an interest rather than an actual belief which I take with a pinch of salt.

However what bugs me is not the refutations of the "skeptics" but the pointless ego-trips of some of the pointless posters on this forum which turns each thread into a pointless tit-for tat bitchfest.

Rather than discuss any topics or issues the automatic response is to not to discuss any points of interest but rather to pick holes and focus on the weakest points at the disregard of valid points.

Some posters narcissistic tendencies seem to me to find any point of view objectionable to their own. They are not interested in actual CT's rather inflating their own self-importance and affirming their own point of view and where better than to mix it with the crazies? Fish in a barrel comes to mind.

Which begs the question - why are you here?

Some people here may think I am referring to them, when I am not.

I have a grudging respect for the knowledge if not the approach of Diogenes ( though seriously man the misplaced anti-semitic slurs as an offense/defence need to stop, especially in light of the fact the last 2 threads you started i.e. holocaust denials and the protocols invite responses to twist). King Mob does it quite well for me, likewise the commander, civil and neither patronising generally nor antagonistic on the whole.

Edit: Thought I should add Bonkey to this who seperates any emotive or personal bias he may have from his posts and always addresses the issues at hand rather than personalising any post.

Snide unfunny one line comments are childish and not at all constructive such as thanking the post of Kernel's making a serious point on the use of thanking posts. Further than that asking someone if they are on medication is systemathic of the better than you attitude, unneccesary and vile elitist snobbery.

As for the issue of proof, either some people don't actually understand what a conspiracy theory is or they don't understand the definition of proof.

Sofa_King Good

and just to add it is my view that any hostility is initally generated from the "skeptic" side.

Kernel

I would say a lot of problems are caused by simple lack of manners when disagreeing with someone. I guess it's easy to forget that there's a person at the keyboard on the other side.

Veni Vedi Vici

Kernel wrote: »

I would say a lot of problems are caused by simple lack of manners when disagreeing with someone. I guess it's easy to forget that there's a person at the keyboard on the other side.

Yep. A lot of aggression from rude folk on this forum.

Mahatma coat

Kernel wrote: »

I would say a lot of problems are caused by simple lack of manners when disagreeing with someone. I guess it's easy to forget that there's a person at the keyboard on the other side.

True,

“Hath not a CT'er eyes? Hath not a CT'er hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Skeptic is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?”

6th

Ok so looking at this so far a couple of things that need to be addressed are stricter moderation and how everyone deals with each other.

People do need to back up statements they make if they are putting them across as anything other than just their personal opinion.

With the move to Soc (as well as the growth of the forum) I think the old charter needs a bit of updating.

6th

Ok theres a new charter in play. Please read and hopefully it will address some of the issues.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

I would say a lot of problems are caused by simple lack of manners when disagreeing with someone. I guess it's easy to forget that there's a person at the keyboard on the other side.

The flip side is, the CTers are often making really, really vile accusations with a shred of proof. Larry Silverstein gets called a Zionist who helped murder 3,000 people on 9/11 because of a misquoted tv interview. SKG accused George Soros of being involved in people traffiking and another poster suggested he was an international criminal mastermind controlling the european heroin trade. Both of these accusations were completely unsubstantiated. These are real people who you are accusing of genuine crimes, and you are affronted when people get annoyed with you for asking for proof? Really?

Mahatma has made sweeping racist remarks, and complains that his feelings get hurt. Am I in a Arthur Miller play? Is this the sodding crucible? People on this forum are casually accusing people of the most heinous crimes on planet without a shred of proof, and the have the temerity of bemoaning that people are a bit terse with them when they ask for proof.

The audacity of one side of this argument is frankly breath taking.

Time Magazine

Diogenes wrote: »

The audacity of one side of this argument is frankly breath taking.

Hear hear. 'Twould be nice if the CTers didn't jump down every skeptic's throat accusing them of being NWO agents etc.

6th

The Economist wrote: »

Hear hear. 'Twould be nice if the CTers didn't jump down every skeptic's throat accusing them of being NWO agents etc.

And it would be nice if both sides didnt make snide remarks, something the skeptics do alot. I could post links but I think we're all grown up enouigh to admit it happens.

6th

Ok folks, updated the charter and would love some feedback. Whats in it that you like, whats missing, what dont you like?

humanji

6th wrote: »

Ok folks, updated the charter and would love some feedback. Whats in it that you like, whats missing, what dont you like?

Should there be a rule to describe any links or videos you post, like they have in Politics? It's happened before where someone linked to a 90 page document on economics and the only information they gave on it was "This is interesting". It's not too helpful. The poster doesn't really have to go into too much detail, but something simple like a brief description and/or maybe their opinion of it.

Oh, and is anything going to be done about pointless pictures in posts, for example, the last load of photos in this post that only there for effect.

bonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

However, I was pm'ed by a mod here (current, not MC) who said essentially that you can slag off any group you want here as long as you don't slag off a poster.

No, zaraba, thats not what I said to you.

Feel free to post the grounds I gave for your banning, the PM you responded with and my subsequent response which is what I believe you're referring to here.

Alternately, if you no longer have those messages, you can give me permission to do so, and I'll post it up here.

bonkey

6th wrote: »

And it would be nice if both sides didnt make snide remarks, something the skeptics do alot.

I think it would be nicer if we all stopped singling out "either side" for special attention in terms of who is doing what.

If its clear that one side is doing it more than the other, then there is no need to point it out. If its not clear, then the claim is itself effectively prejudicial and is as much part of the problem as anything else.

6th

humanji wrote: »

Should there be a rule to describe any links or videos you post, like they have in Politics? It's happened before where someone linked to a 90 page document on economics and the only information they gave on it was "This is interesting". It's not too helpful. The poster doesn't really have to go into too much detail, but something simple like a brief description and/or maybe their opinion of it.

Oh, and is anything going to be done about pointless pictures in posts, for example, the last load of photos in this post that only there for effect.

Both very good points. I think we will watch for that and moderate as we go. If it looks like its a regular problem we'll drop it into the charter.

6th

bonkey wrote: »

I think it would be nicer if we all stopped singling out "either side" for special attention in terms of who is doing what.

True, apologies to all concerned. My bad.

bonkey

bonkey wrote: »

No, zaraba, thats not what I said to you.

Feel free to post the grounds I gave for your banning, the PM you responded with and my subsequent response which is what I believe you're referring to here.

Alternately, if you no longer have those messages, you can give me permission to do so, and I'll post it up here.

Bonkey's PM wrote:

People slag off all sorts of external groups on all sorts of forums over boards all the time.
People get banned from the same forums once they start calling people names.

Being a mod 'n all, I'm somewhat surprised you didn't already understand this.

Thats was your PM. The banning was fair, the questions was in response to me sending:

My PM to Bonkey wrote:

Ah, I see how it works - I can slag off the jews and blame them for the evils of the world and I can condemn those in the financial services for being idiots and slag them off.. but I can't do the same for individuals?

Got that now, I'll keep my comments for group levels.

I'm not questioning the banning, I would have banned me from any forums I mod for that. But I am questioning the fact that people can 'slag off groups all the time' and get away with it. I am also amazed that people can slag off named individuals, especially in light of this post by Dev.

Now, please tell me I am wrong. I would be very happy to be incorrect in this instance, but from the lack of mod action in relation to a number of posts on here it does seem that I can write whatever I want about an aggregate level of people.

Sofa_King Good

Diogenes wrote: »

The flip side is, the CTers are often making really, really vile accusations

Yeah I agree, this definitely has no place in the politics forum. This theory is merely a conpiracy!..A theory...wait a minute

Diogenes wrote: »

SKG accused George Soros of being involved in people traffiking and These are real people who you are accusing of genuine crimes,

do you mean some kind of conspiracy? or should the limit be who put washing up liquid in the local fountain? And for the record I said the Jewish and Russian Mafia have are involved in human traffiicking and that Soros has alleged ties to these mafia.

Diogenes wrote: »

and you are affronted when people get annoyed with you for asking for proof? Really?

Never seen this to be true. However, any conjecture which is presented as such is never given the light of day.

Diogenes wrote: »

The audacity of one side of this argument is frankly breath taking.

Agreed

6th

Lads, we want opinions on the forum and the new charter, not a pissing contest. State your opinions as if the only post you can see is the opening post.

Sofa_King Good

6th wrote: »

Ok folks, updated the charter and would love some feedback. Whats in it that you like, whats missing, what dont you like?

Job well done 6th. Can't see any issues with it at all and yourself and yourself and Bonkey seem trustworthy and reasonable in your dealings.

If not, I know what you look like and where you'll be next Monday :pac::pac::pac: You want even see me coming

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Yeah I agree, this definitely has no place in the politics forum. This theory is merely a conpiracy!..A theory...wait a minute

You're still referencing genuine people, and making evidence against them without a shred of evidence.

do you mean some kind of conspiracy? or should the limit be who put washing up liquid in the local fountain? And for the record I said the Jewish and Russian Mafia have are involved in human traffiicking and that Soros has alleged ties to these mafia.

And you offered nothing to substantiate these claims.

Never seen this to be true. However, any conjecture which is presented as such is never given the light of day.

That doesn't make a wit of sense. For example, you've made a very specific claim about Soros, you've not even bothered to offer conjecture, never mind evidence.

Agreed

And I'm the sarcastic one.





6th. Theres a massive flaw in your charter, essentially by adding the clause, "I Think" to any sentence, you remove the need for proof.

ie.

"George Soros is a heroin dealer".

The above is a definitive statement of fact, and as to the charter requires proof.

"I Think George Soros is a heroin dealer".

The above is an opinion and doesn't require any supporting evidence.



As Bonkey said on a previous thread claims require evidence. You can't say "I just think the jews made up the holocaust" without supporting it.

bonkey

Now, please tell me I am wrong. I would be very happy to be incorrect in this instance, but from the lack of mod action in relation to a number of posts on here it does seem that I can write whatever I want about an aggregate level of people.

You're wrong.

You told me me that banning you for calling someone an idiot means that its ok to slag groups, but not individuals.
My response to you was that this "group/poster" distinction was something that you should be familiar with, being a moderator, given that its in no way unique to this board.

You seem to have construed this here as me telling you that you slag off any group you like in this forum. I didn't. I clarified the distinction between attacking posters and non-posters. You made the suggestion that its ok to slag off whatever groups you like. I neither confirmed nor refuted that claim. Rather, I limited myself to commenting on why you were banned, and the relevant distinction that applied to your response.

This forum is, in my opinion, not served by placing total bans on even the hint of discussing certain topics, and more than its served by people having a complete free hand to say and do as they please.

If it were my personal choice, I'd quite happily allow all such topics, so that people expressing bigoted, racist comments could be shown to be expressing bigoted, racist comments and that people expressing outrage at the tiniest imagined slight could be shown to be grossly over-reacting. I honestly don't believe that such an approach could work in this forum, so instead, I've been applying the previous tools of judging discussions on their content and on the "report a post" functionality.

Conspiracy Theories, by their nature, require a conspiracy. THey require there to be someone "behind it all". Given that we're generally not discussing conspiracies to make the world a vastly better place, that pretty-much ensures that every single conspiracy theory is going to have some "bad guy".

I do not agree with any notion that there is a list of acceptable or unacceptable bad guys - that there are people who are ok to blame for the evil in the world, and people who are immune from same. Rather, I get the impression that if we build such a list, then we allow bigots the capability to point at us from elsewhere and use us as evidence as to how their "reasonable" argument is being suppressed....how there's a conspiracy against them. I'd rather allow the bigot to come into my parlour, play by my rules, and get politely torn to shreads for having an argument that simply doesn't hold up.

That way, the bigot is not being victimised. They are being given a fair, level playing field, and then publically getting their ass whipped on it. They don't get to point at us as part of the oppressive regime. If they then hide from the public, its because they need to, not because they can lay claim to some victim role.

The only fear that then remains is that the bigot presents so good an argument that they don't get their ass handed to them in a discussion. Such arguments are inherently worth listening to....because if an argument is that good, then it has merit.

So to come back to where I started...I fully support a certain degree of leeway in attacking external groups, and do not agree with giving some external groups more protection than others in this regard. I do not support attacking posters, regardless of what group it is they themselves are making claims about.

I banned you for the latter. I clarified that there is a distinction between the latter and the former. I did not say "essentially that you can slag off any group you want here as long as you don't slag off a poster".

bonkey

Diogenes wrote: »

As Bonkey said on a previous thread claims require evidence. You can't say "I just think the jews made up the holocaust" without supporting it.

Did I say that?

You can certainly say it. I can then say in response that you have no evidence, no supporting reasons, and have either admitted as much or refused to supply them.

I'd then ask the reader to draw their own conclusion, and suggest that the discussion move back towards something that could be discussed, and away from a hunch with no supporting argument.

Sofa_King Good

Diogenes, There is a thread on Soros. I'll respond there in future. Otherwise we are hijackig this important thhread

bonkey

bonkey wrote: »

You're wrong.

You told me me that banning you for calling someone an idiot means that its ok to slag groups, but not individuals.
My response to you was that this "group/poster" distinction was something that you should be familiar with, being a moderator, given that its in no way unique to this board.

You seem to have construed this here as me telling you that you slag off any group you like in this forum. I didn't. I clarified the distinction between attacking posters and non-posters. You made the suggestion that its ok to slag off whatever groups you like. I neither confirmed nor refuted that claim. Rather, I limited myself to commenting on why you were banned, and the relevant distinction that applied to your response.

This forum is, in my opinion, not served by placing total bans on even the hint of discussing certain topics, and more than its served by people having a complete free hand to say and do as they please.

If it were my personal choice, I'd quite happily allow all such topics, so that people expressing bigoted, racist comments could be shown to be expressing bigoted, racist comments and that people expressing outrage at the tiniest imagined slight could be shown to be grossly over-reacting. I honestly don't believe that such an approach could work in this forum, so instead, I've been applying the previous tools of judging discussions on their content and on the "report a post" functionality.

Conspiracy Theories, by their nature, require a conspiracy. THey require there to be someone "behind it all". Given that we're generally not discussing conspiracies to make the world a vastly better place, that pretty-much ensures that every single conspiracy theory is going to have some "bad guy".

I do not agree with any notion that there is a list of acceptable or unacceptable bad guys - that there are people who are ok to blame for the evil in the world, and people who are immune from same. Rather, I get the impression that if we build such a list, then we allow bigots the capability to point at us from elsewhere and use us as evidence as to how their "reasonable" argument is being suppressed....how there's a conspiracy against them. I'd rather allow the bigot to come into my parlour, play by my rules, and get politely torn to shreads for having an argument that simply doesn't hold up.

That way, the bigot is not being victimised. They are being given a fair, level playing field, and then publically getting their ass whipped on it. They don't get to point at us as part of the oppressive regime. If they then hide from the public, its because they need to, not because they can lay claim to some victim role.

The only fear that then remains is that the bigot presents so good an argument that they don't get their ass handed to them in a discussion. Such arguments are inherently worth listening to....because if an argument is that good, then it has merit.

So to come back to where I started...I fully support a certain degree of leeway in attacking external groups, and do not agree with giving some external groups more protection than others in this regard. I do not support attacking posters, regardless of what group it is they themselves are making claims about.

I banned you for the latter. I clarified that there is a distinction between the latter and the former. I did not say "essentially that you can slag off any group you want here as long as you don't slag off a poster".

I don't agree with that approach - but you mod the forum, not me.

Personally, I wouldn't be allowing people to use boards.ie as a medium to vent any racist ideas. That would just be me though.

I also don't have this group distinction - you say something on one of the forums I mod that breaks the charted, then you get infracted or banned. It doesn't matter if the subject of that comment is on boards or not. That is inline with Dev's instructions.

My bone of contention was that many posters were able to start shouting at groups (the jews, the banks, this league of super governments) and accuse them of orchestrating a negative event. Now again, maybe its me but I differentiate between a conspiracy theory and a concept that just popped into my head. Conspiracy Theories, IMO, require some form of proof or evidence. IE, Putin and North Korea are acting together based on these facts which I take to mean collusion. I don't agree with posts like; he is sucessfull, he is a jew and therefore this a Zionist conspiracy to screw me over.

Like I said earlier, if you want to vent, get a blog. If you want to put some form of a coherent argument, then post here. Otherwise (as has happend) the tone of the forum degenerates into what we currently have; two very polarised camps heading in opposite directions.

6th

Diogenes wrote: »

You're still referencing genuine people, and making evidence against them without a shred of evidence.
......

And I'm the sarcastic one.

Read post #40 please.

Diogenes wrote: »

6th. Theres a massive flaw in your charter, essentially by adding the clause, "I Think" to any sentence, you remove the need for proof.

ie.

"George Soros is a heroin dealer".

The above is a definitive statement of fact, and as to the charter requires proof.

"I Think George Soros is a heroin dealer".

The above is an opinion and doesn't require any supporting evidence.



As Bonkey said on a previous thread claims require evidence. You can't say "I just think the jews made up the holocaust" without supporting it.

No flaw, its an intentional element. If someone say they "think" our "believe" something then you ask them why they believe it not ask them for proof. Again this is a discussion forum, if people cant put forward their thoughts then the place wouldnt be worth much.

6th

6th wrote: »

Read post #40 please.




No flaw, its an intentional element. If someone say they "think" our "believe" something then you ask them why they believe it not ask them for proof. Again this is a discussion forum, if people cant put forward their thoughts then the place wouldnt be worth much.

Aye, but even AH has limits.

Coherent arguments and discussion, yes.
Diatribe: no.

Peronsally I would trust you and Bonkey to make that call/

6th

Deleted User wrote: »

Aye, but even AH has limits.

Coherent arguments and discussion, yes.
Diatribe: no.

Peronsally I would trust you and Bonkey to make that call/

Ah it wont be a free for all in here. We wont lay down hard rules on everything but there will be more moderation now that we have a couple of new bodies.

We appreciate the trust too, obviously we're making changes but its all for the good of the community.

bonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't agree with that approach - but you mod the forum, not me.

There are currently 4 moderators of the forum. The other three don't toe some line that I define, nor should they. It is, however, important that we have a broad agreement on how we mod the forum together.

I believe that I can speak for the mods collectively when I say that we want to know how as many posters as possible feel things should be run, and we will make our decisions as to how to move forwards based (at least in part) on those wishes.

This thread is about offering opinions. I'm merely offering mine here. I'm offering a point for discussion...which I accept runs counter to the opinions of some/many as to what is the right way to take things.

Personally, I wouldn't be allowing people to use boards.ie as a medium to vent any racist ideas. That would just be me though.

Fair enough. Can we define where the line is drawn?

Anti-Americanism wouldn't be racist, but anti-African-American probably would be.
Similarly, anti-Semitism would be racist but would include all Semites (and exclude non-Semitic Jews), but anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish wouldn't be.

Now, I'm going to guess that when you said "racist" you meant something far broader than "racist"....so that people picking on Catholics or Jews would be as unacceptable as picking on a "race" (which is hard enough to define in the first place).

The problem with any definition is that the more clearly you define it, the easier it is for the determined bigot to find a way to carefully word their way around it. The less clearly you define it, the easier it is for anyone to decide that whatever rubs them up the wrong way should be banned, based on their interpretation of the rules, whilst everyone who is subject to moderation will argue that based on their interpretation, they did nothing wrong. So we run the risk of ending up with a "definition" which is "whatever the mods decide".

I would add that while you see my suggestion as giving someone "a medium to vent racist ideas", I see it as a medium to have racist ideas torn to shreds by those willing to stand against racism.

My bone of contention was that many posters were able to start shouting at groups (the jews, the banks, this league of super governments) and accuse them of orchestrating a negative event. Now again, maybe its me but I differentiate between a conspiracy theory and a concept that just popped into my head. Conspiracy Theories, IMO, require some form of proof or evidence.

The operative words in that piece are some form. The most common form of evidence we see here is how information can be interpreted to be consistent with a scenario. Who judges what constitutes "sufficient evidence" for something to be allowed here? On what basis? What if someone meets the sufficient evidence criteria, but then someone else cries that the "orchestrator" is being picked on because of their race/religion, and that allowing the thread to continue is facilitating the racism that some claim has been let fester here.

Again, it seems to boil down more to some non-definition then to a clearly-drawn line.

I don't agree with posts like; he is sucessfull, he is a jew and therefore this a Zionist conspiracy to screw me over.

Nor do I, but I would say that :

a) Such posts are few and far between
and
b) To the best of my memory, you haven't reported a single one of these posts.

Of course, given that you include governments and banks in there, then it also seems that you would find "he's successful and therefore this is a conspiracy to screw me over" equally unacceptable.

How about "He's successful, and here's why this is a conspiracy to screw me over"?

If you want to put some form of a coherent argument, then post here.

I am of the opinion that most - if not all - posters here consider their own arguments to be coherent. Many will tend to find arguments of those who agree with them to be more coherent in general then those who disagree with them.

Could it be that what you're really saying is that if someone posts what a moderator judges to be a non-coherent argument, then the moderator should do something about it? Going back to the same point I've made several times in this thread...can we clearly define what constitues "coherency" in this regard?

Me...I'm quite happy to let someone hold and express a stupid idea or make a non-coherent argument...because it can make for great discussion. If it doesn't, it quickly gets lost as "noise" due to the active nature of the forum.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I generally refine my ideas based on the outcome of discussions where I express or defend those ideas. I may defend them to the hilt during a discussion, only to revise them significantly afterwards based on what I've learned. From that perspective, I have no problem with someone making what you or I may consider to be a non-coherent argument...as long as they're willing to discuss the topic, then someone (parties involved, or lurkers reading) stands a chance to learn something, even if its not apparent in-thread.

Otherwise (as has happend) the tone of the forum degenerates into what we currently have; two very polarised camps heading in opposite directions.

The nature of conspiracy theories will, I believe, inevitably lead to two polarised camps heading in opposite directions. Fundamentally, the two camps hold significantly different world-views. The purpose of this forum, in my opinion, should be to facilitate discussions amongst and between those world-views.

bonkey

bonkey wrote: »

There are currently 4 moderators of the forum. The other three don't toe some line that I define, nor should they. It is, however, important that we have a broad agreement on how we mod the forum together.

I believe that I can speak for the mods collectively when I say that we want to know how as many posters as possible feel things should be run, and we will make our decisions as to how to move forwards based (at least in part) on those wishes.

This thread is about offering opinions. I'm merely offering mine here. I'm offering a point for discussion...which I accept runs counter to the opinions of some/many as to what is the right way to take things.


Fair enough. Can we define where the line is drawn?

Anti-Americanism wouldn't be racist, but anti-African-American probably would be.
Similarly, anti-Semitism would be racist but would include all Semites (and exclude non-Semitic Jews), but anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish wouldn't be.

Now, I'm going to guess that when you said "racist" you meant something far broader than "racist"....so that people picking on Catholics or Jews would be as unacceptable as picking on a "race" (which is hard enough to define in the first place).

The problem with any definition is that the more clearly you define it, the easier it is for the determined bigot to find a way to carefully word their way around it.

I would add that while you see my suggestion as giving someone "a medium to vent racist ideas", I see it as a medium to have racist ideas torn to shreds by those willing to stand against racism.


The operative words in that piece are some form. The most common form of evidence we see here is how information can be interpreted to be consistent with a scenario. Who judges what constitutes "sufficient evidence" for something to be allowed here? On what basis? What if someone meets the sufficient evidence criteria, but then someone else cries that the "orchestrator" is being picked on because of their race/religion, and that allowing the thread to continue is facilitating the racism that some claim has been let fester here.


Nor do I, but I would say that :

a) Such posts are few and far between
and
b) To the best of my memory, you haven't reported a single one of these posts.

Of course, given that you include governments and banks in there, then it also seems that you would find "he's successful and therefore this is a conspiracy to screw me over" equally unacceptable.

How about "He's successful, and here's why this is a conspiracy to screw me over"?


I am of the opinion that most - if not all - posters here consider their own arguments to be coherent. Many will tend to find arguments of those who agree with them to be more coherent in general then those who disagree with them.

Could it be that what you're really saying is that if someone posts what a moderator judges to be a non-coherent argument, then the moderator should do something about it? Going back to the same point I've made several times in this thread...can we clearly define what constitues "coherency" in this regard?

Me...I'm quite happy to let someone hold and express a stupid idea or make a non-coherent argument...because it can make for great discussion. If it doesn't, it quickly gets lost as "noise" due to the active nature of the forum.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I generally refine my ideas based on the outcome of discussions where I express or defend those ideas. I may defend them to the hilt during a discussion, only to revise them significantly afterwards based on what I've learned. From that perspective, I have no problem with someone making what you or I may consider to be a non-coherent argument...as long as they're willing to discuss the topic, then someone (parties involved, or lurkers reading) stands a chance to learn something, even if its not apparent in-thread.


The nature of conspiracy theories will, I believe, inevitably lead to two polarised camps heading in opposite directions. Fundamentally, the two camps hold significantly different world-views. The purpose of this forum, in my opinion, should be to facilitate discussions amongst and between those world-views.

Excellent post, as always.

I think the one issue we have is with coherent posting.
Take today for example - I am going to single out mysterious and k-9.

Mysterious is making, what I would define as non coherent arguments - essentially he is just bitching about how he perceives the world to work. However, when questioned there is no attempt to justify his position, he just reinforces it. Again and again and again.
K-9 questions him - but mysterious doesn't answer the questions, he just keeps repeating his point.

Now you may say this is just noise, but there are few posters who are very prolific and who just keep repeating the same point.

On the other hand, you have Kernel, another very prolific poster but he(she?) puts content and the driving reasons into their posts. Therefore, you can discuss them. Neither side may agree with the points which the other makes, but there is a form of discussion taking place and I find these very interesting to read.

As a mod, if you see a thread descending into the first case, what do you do? Where the OP is not showing anysides of actually arguing his case but rather is just reinforcing a point?