Make the CT forum Members only

superluck

Is this difficult to implement?

The CT forum for obvious reasons attract a lot of spammers and trolls but there are can be a lot of discussions there that get ruined.

Atleast if there was a subforum made for members, that would be desirable.

So far, every thread ends up in bans/arguments between people posting..

My name is URL

superluck wrote: »

Is this difficult to implement?

The CT forum for obvious reasons attract a lot of spammers and trolls but there are can be a lot of discussions there that get ruined.

Atleast if there was a subforum made for members, that would be desirable.

So far, every thread ends up in bans/arguments between people posting..

There's a Feedback thread in the CT forum. It might be best to take it up there, lest this thread go the way of most of those in CT =p

looksee

Commuting and Transport? Computers and Technology? Ah! Conspiracy Theories!

Could we have first mention in a thread of a Forum should be spelled out rather than initials? With the possible exception of AH which I think everyone knows. Except maybe newcomers!

Orion

You want to make Conspiracy Theories private? Oh the irony :pac:

TouchingVirus

superluck wrote: »

So far, every thread ends up in bans/arguments between people posting..

Welcome to the internet. It would be a shít place to be if we all just agreed with each other.

My name is URL

TouchingVirus wrote: »

Welcome to the internet. It would be a shít place to be if we all just agreed with each other.

Speak for yourself.

Who doesn't love an echo chamber?

Dohnny Jepp

My name is URL wrote: »

Speak for yourself.

Who doesn't love an echo chamber?

I DO I DO I DO I DO I DO I DO I DO

_AVALANCHE_

I asked a certain Mod for access to Ranting & Raving 5 months ago and never got a reply.

Poor me.:(

Ken.

_AVALANCHE_ wrote: »

I asked a certain Mod for access to Ranting & Raving 5 months ago and never got a reply.

Poor me.:(

Ask a different one. dr.bollocko, Handsome Bob, keefg

superluck

Believe it or not the CT forum does have proper discussions about many political issues which can ...let's say upset some emotionally unstable people, mainly those who support terrorist states like Israel and America who murder people overseas for profit.

Unfortunately the forum attracts many sanctimonious morons who know little about anything generally. Some of the people "taking the piss" can't even spell properly or string a coherent sentence together when making their sh!t jokes but then this is the land of the illiterate.

There's a select few that visit the forum every single day to tell us all how the world works and since I suspect this is a medical condition they are suffering and asked them to seek professional help for this disturbing behaviour, I was banned for personal abuse.

So what's the problem? If everyone in the CT forum are nuts, just close it off to members only like it's a hospital for mentally ill.

Is that not the general consensus anyway, that everyone in the CT forum are crazy and they need to be reminded by judge mental people?

Penn

The point of CT always being public where people of both sides of the debate can discuss the topics is because, if someone thinks a certain Conspiracy Theory is true, but someone else has links or evidence which shows otherwise, well that's surely in the best interests of everyone. If the forum was private and only Theorists were allowed to post in there (disregarding the fact that some people believe in a lot of CTs, some people only believe in some, and some people might only believe in one or two CTs and disagree with the rest, which means determining "membership" for the private forum would be nigh-on impossible), then both sides of the discussion won't be presented.

If people are overstepping the line and mocking theorists or trolling, report their posts and let the mods deal with it.

Brown Bomber

Orion wrote: »

You want to make Conspiracy Theories private? Oh the irony :pac:

I believe he/she would prefer the conspiracy theories forum private out of neccessity due to constant trolling and hostility.

To understand the OP you need to understand that there are 2 (and a half) types of people who are attracted to the forum 1) People who want to discuss conspiracy theories 2) Skeptics:People who enjoy ridiculing "people who want to discuss conspiracy theories" as they seem personally offended by their existence and see themselves as self-appointed guardians of logic and rationality. 2 1/2) Normal people.

In every other forum - Politics, Economics, English Literature, for examples - you can have sides to the debate: Politics: Liberal vs Conservative. Economics: Austrian School vs Keynsenianism. English Lit: Shakespeare vs Alighieri (or whatever). In all these cases debate is encouraged. This debate is not possible in conspiracy theories as the "People who want to discuss conspiracy theories" never actually get a chance to interact with each other because as soons as they open there mouths they are maligned and ridiculed.

Sticking with the prior examples if there was a determined group of posters who were anti-politics, anti-economics, anti-English Literature and there was a constant undertone of hostility towards people who are trying to discuss Economics etc would it be allowed?

For example these are comments made by skeptics from the first couple of threads alone in the conspiracy theories forum against "conspiracy theory nutters":

Absurdity
vile mistruth
swallowed it unthinkingly
and this on a thread on incredibly over active pareidolia
has the internet just given every jackass with an opinion the ability to shout it louder and at more people than would previously be possible?

abject dishonesty
dishonest representation
dishonest and manipulative
tasteless propaganda
deceitful claims
Maybe the CIA deleted your post - who knows in this crazy fantasy world?

why you have to lie and distort
blatantly distorting
dishonest
spewing out the propaganda
ridiculous
distorting facts and making nonsense predictions
Ignorance is bliss.
Can you point out some of these other gestures from previous years. I'm bored and could do with a laugh
shadowy bad guys
You really don't have a clue
pathetic insinuation
rambling
incoherent analysis
meaningless torrent of whine
I know, everyone but me has gone ****ing nuts.
proselytize elsewhere.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

For example these are comments made by skeptics from the first couple of threads alone in the conspiracy theories forum against "conspiracy theory nutters":

Just to add a little context to some of these quotes as a few are mine:

vile mistruth

Was referring to the very racist and very untrue myth that no Israeli or Jewish person died in 9/11.

swallowed it unthinkingly

Was my expressing the fact that since a poster refused and/or was unable to point out the reasons why they believed something, after repeated requests to explain and elaborate such, made it look like they had in fact swallowed it unthinkingly.

spewing out the propaganda
tasteless propaganda

Is probably referring to the scaremongering photoshopped pictures that Run to Da Hills posts in lieu of discussion.

Please give some context to the quotes and please do not ignore the posts that you can't complain about.

humanji

In the interest of fairness, the pro-conspiracy side are just as bad.

Maybe if everyone on the forum decided to be polite instead of insulting other people then claiming that they themselves are the victims, the forum would be a happier place to be.

What would be the requirements for a private forum? Do you have to believe all conspiracies? Can you believe one and argue against others? Or do you just have to let everyone say pro-conspiracy things and bite your tongue when you disagree? Would a blog not be better, in that case? And who decides who gains entry?

A private forum would risk ending up being nothing but a repository for random links. There won't be discussion beyond "Good post, here's another link", if all counter discussion is banned.

If someone is breaching the charter, report them. If they're not breaching the charter but annoying you, then ignore them. You're all adults so there's no reason to resort to childish bickering and name-calling. Just move on.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Just to add a little context to some of these quotes as a few are mine:

I didn't want to point the finger but since you've put yourself forward here is page one of your posts in conspiracy theories.
http://www.boards.ie/search/?sort=newest&f=576&u=68949

I've taken from the first couple of posts that weren't too long and publish them here in full (one is a section). Now tell me, which of the following of your posts are productive and contribute to friendly and health debate amongst the conspiracy theory communuty on boards.ie?

Patronising.

So the shadowy bad guys both did nothing to stop the riots and let them happen.... but also made them happen?

Kinda hedging your bets there...

Singling a user out for abuse. Patronising.

Only if you really really want them to look like something, ignore the bits that don't fit and completely ignore a plot hole like a small gaming company being involved in the global conspiracy, then printing that fact on their obscure card game.
Basically like all the crap RtdH posts really.

Taking the piss.

Oh, didn't you know that Steve Jackson Games is part of the conspiracy?

Abusive. Patronising.

You are dishonest because you are avoiding questions and are using dishonest tactics such as strawmen, appeals to authority and appeals to emotion.
You are hypocritical because you claim to want to spread understanding about the issue, but refuse to answer questions about it in an honest coherent way and are expecting people to buy what you claim using evidence and arguments that you would not accept.

Aggressive, insulting and patronising.

Instead of advertising for this guy is there any chance you'll answer some of the points you're avoiding?
Or maybe explain why our points about people honestly believing patently silly and untrue things about themselves aren't relevant?
Why do some people believe they are abducted by aliens?
Why do you not believe their claims when they are exactly as supported as the claims of targeted individuals?
Why should we bother listening to these guys when you are unable to address simple questions honestly?

Again aggressive and patronising.

Again, you're telling people to listen to these people but refuse to explain why they should.
I've asked you repeatedly to explain what these guys provided to make their stories different to the thousands of other examples you agree are indistinguishable from people being mentally ill.
So far the only thing you've provided is an argument from authority and that you've just swallowed their stories uncritically.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Patronising.

Singling a user out for abuse. Patronising.
Taking the piss.

Abusive. Patronising.

Aggressive, insulting and patronising.

Again aggressive and patronising.


[/COLOR]

And aside from the bolded one, which I got a warning for, which of those where breaching the charter?

Please actually post what I post in context.

Brown Bomber

humanji wrote: »

In the interest of fairness, the pro-conspiracy side are just as bad.

Maybe if everyone on the forum decided to be polite instead of insulting other people then claiming that they themselves are the victims, the forum would be a happier place to be.

What would be the requirements for a private forum? Do you have to believe all conspiracies? Can you believe one and argue against others? Or do you just have to let everyone say pro-conspiracy things and bite your tongue when you disagree? Would a blog not be better, in that case? And who decides who gains entry?

A private forum would risk ending up being nothing but a repository for random links. There won't be discussion beyond "Good post, here's another link", if all counter discussion is banned.

If someone is breaching the charter, report them. If they're not breaching the charter but annoying you, then ignore them. You're all adults so there's no reason to resort to childish bickering and name-calling. Just move on.

Put it this way - If you were a mod of a fast-food enthusiasts forum, each to their own and all that, which was setup for likeminded people to discuss their common interest with each other and you had streams of keep-fit types coming into the forum making fat jokes and generally being condescending and dismissive of the people who are trying to have friendly discussions and it comes about that every exchange involves the fast-food guys having to try and defend themselves from comments from the keep-fit guys rather than discuss the topic that they are interested in wouldn't you take a step back and say to yourself - "this isn't working...there needs to be a format in place which prioritises the community over the trolls"?

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

"this isn't working...there needs to be a format in place which prioritises the community over the trolls"?

A 'Fast Food Enthusiasts' forum would be for fast food enthusiasts. However, a 'Fast Food' forum would be for anyone who wishes to discuss fast food. Similarly, the Conspiracy Theories forum is for the discussion of Conspiracy Theories. It is not specifically for Conspiracy Theorists.

There are many forums on boards where the relevant topic is discussed from both sides of the argument. There may be more on one side than the other, but, as per the CT forum charter:

It is almost inevitable that you will see large amounts of the users here falling into two main camps, either in general, or on specific issues. On any issue there are those who support the Conspiracy Theory, and those who do not (referred to as "the skeptics", commonly). Whether you fall into one of those groups, or are more of a "fence-sitter", you're welcome here as long as you treat everyone else with respect.

Just because the forum is Conspiracy Theories does not mean that theorists are "the community". Any poster who uses the forum regularly is part of the community, regardless of what side of the fence they're on. And both sides of the fence sling sh*t over to the other side.

Again, the forum is for discussing Conspiracy Theories. That involves both sides.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Put it this way - If you were a mod of a fast-food enthusiasts forum, each to their own and all that, which was setup for likeminded people to discuss their common interest with each other and you had streams of keep-fit types coming into the forum making fat jokes and generally being condescending and dismissive of the people who are trying to have friendly discussions and it comes about that every exchange involves the fast-food guys having to try and defend themselves from comments from the keep-fit guys rather than discuss the topic that they are interested in wouldn't you take a step back and say to yourself - "this isn't working...there needs to be a format in place which prioritises the community over the trolls"?

A better analogy would be where the fast food enthusiasts immediately dismiss any counter argument (or anything they don't like) as trolling or dismissiveness.

And afair, there's still a bit in the charter that allows OPs to exclude certain types of discussion and viewpoints from their threads within reason, so if you really did not want to hear from anyone who questioned the premise you don't have to.
But few have be availed of that because hopefully they realise how hypocritical that would be.

humanji

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Put it this way - If you were a mod of a fast-food enthusiasts forum, each to their own and all that, which was setup for likeminded people to discuss their common interest with each other and you had streams of keep-fit types coming into the forum making fat jokes and generally being condescending and dismissive of the people who are trying to have friendly discussions and it comes about that every exchange involves the fast-food guys having to try and defend themselves from comments from the keep-fit guys rather than discuss the topic that they are interested in wouldn't you take a step back and say to yourself - "this isn't working...there needs to be a format in place which prioritises the community over the trolls"?

That's an horrifically disingenuous example.

If it was a forum to discuss fast food and there were both pro-fast food and anti-fast food fans, there wouldn't be a problem. But when, despite the attempts of a handful to act like adults, a large portion of both sides try their hardest to insult each other, you realise that the problem isn't the forum format, it's the people on it.

It's not a problem with one side attacking the other. There's continued attempts at goading from nearly all participants in the forum.

Making the forum private is like cutting your leg off because you stubbed your toe. It's not solving the problem, it's hiding it. And as I said above, what happens when the select members start disagreeing? How do we decide which of them has to go?

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

A 'Fast Food Enthusiasts' forum would be for fast food enthusiasts. However, a 'Fast Food' forum would be for anyone who wishes to discuss fast food. Similarly, the Conspiracy Theories forum is for the discussion of Conspiracy Theories. It is not specifically for Conspiracy Theorists.

There are many forums on boards where the relevant topic is discussed from both sides of the argument. There may be more on one side than the other, but, as per the CT forum charter:

Okay, you are missing the point entirely. I agree that the forum should be for discussing conspiracy theories for all. Just like the pschyology forum should be for all. However, if you have a bunch of militant Scientologists waiting to pounce on every thread causing a fuss, putting down pschyology and pschyologists at every opportunity they would be banned in short measure for trolling. For doing exactly what the debunkers do in CT.

Penn wrote: »

I am saying that the forum format should prioritise those interested in discussing the topics. Not those who desire to debunk the topics.
Just because the forum is Conspiracy Theories does not mean that theorists are "the community". Any poster who uses the forum regularly is part of the community, regardless of what side of the fence they're on. And both sides of the fence sling sh*t over to the other side..

Okay, so you are the mod of GTA. If I've never played GTA in my life. Have a patronising tone generally and only make disparaging remarks about the game and the people who play it I would therefore be a member of the GTA "community" and you'd have no problems with that as a mod?

Penn wrote: »

Again, the forum is for discussing Conspiracy Theories. That involves both sides.

Actually it is far more complex than that. Yes there are people who are anti-conspiracy theorists, they're not hard to identify but amongst those who you consider pro-conspiracy theories there are many shades of grey.

Brown Bomber

humanji wrote: »

That's an horrifically disingenuous example.

If it was a forum to discuss fast food and there were both pro-fast food and anti-fast food fans, there wouldn't be a problem. But when, despite the attempts of a handful to act like adults, a large portion of both sides try their hardest to insult each other, you realise that the problem isn't the forum format, it's the people on it.

It's not a problem with one side attacking the other. There's continued attempts at goading from nearly all participants in the forum.

Making the forum private is like cutting your leg off because you stubbed your toe. It's not solving the problem, it's hiding it. And as I said above, what happens when the select members start disagreeing? How do we decide which of them has to go?

Right, I do agree it is the players rather than the game that is at fault but I was under the impression that the OP was suggesting a sub-forum rather than a private forum.

Like they have in paranormal.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Okay, you are missing the point entirely. I agree that the forum should be for discussing conspiracy theories for all. Just like the pschyology forum should be for all. However, if you have a bunch of militant Scientologists waiting to pounce on every thread causing a fuss, putting down pschyology and pschyologists at every opportunity they would be banned in short measure for trolling. For doing exactly what the debunkers do in CT.

And people have been banned for going overboard like that in the past. The problem is, one persons trolling is another persons rebuttal. Maybe some people are quick to try and debunk the theory. But if they're remaining respectful, there should be no issue with that, as they are discussing the topic. The problem is when they are not respectful. But that's not exclusive to 'debunkers', as there are many 'theorists' who act the exact same way.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Okay, so you are the mod of GTA. If I've never played GTA in my life. Have a patronising tone generally and only make disparaging remarks about the game and the people who play it I would therefore be a member of the GTA "community" and you'd have no problems with that as a mod?

Another bad analogy. You're describing a troll. If they had never played the game, they couldn't possibly give an educated opposing viewpoint. CTs however, many of the debunkers/skeptics actively engage in the discussion, just offering an opposing viewpoint usually backed up by some evidence or links. Again, it's when people step out of line that the problems occur. And again, this isn't limited to skeptics.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Actually it is far more complex than that. Yes there are people who are anti-conspiracy theorists, they're not hard to identify but amongst those who you consider pro-conspiracy theories there are many shades of grey.

I agree. Like I said, there are some people who agree with most CTs, there are some that agree with only a few CTs, and equally, there are some who don't agree with any CTs. But the forum is for the discussion of CTs, so even those who believe in no CTs should be welcome to give their viewpoint. I don't agree with any CTs, yet the reason I started posting in the forum was because I enjoyed discussing some of them. But again, it's all about remaining respectful, and that's something which is a problem throughout the forum, not just on one side.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, I do agree it is the players rather than the game that is at fault but I was under the impression that the OP was suggesting a sub-forum rather than a private forum.

Like they have in paranormal.

No, the OP was suggesting making the whole forum private, for people who only believe in CTs (subforum for 'members only' would be a private forum). Which as has been pointed out, would be next to impossible to determine who is allowed to join. What would happen to posters who have been posting there for years, remained respectful, but didn't believe in CTs? Or why would theorists who have caused trouble in the past be allowed to join? How many theories would you have to believe in to get access? etc.

Even a sub-forum would be a bad idea, because right away, you're blocking people from discussing the topics before you know if they can remain respectful or not (especially when it comes to new posters)

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

And people have been banned for going overboard like that in the past. The problem is, one persons trolling is another persons rebuttal. Maybe some people are quick to try and debunk the theory. But if they're remaining respectful, there should be no issue with that, as they are discussing the topic. The problem is when they are not respectful. But that's not exclusive to 'debunkers', as there are many 'theorists' who act the exact same way.

For arguments sake let's take that as a given. I think it's also established that the forum is dysfunctional. So what is the root of the problem?

Who starts the threads? (the people who are actually interested in the subject matter) Is there a problem yet? Obviously not. The problems arise as the debunkers come in and raise tensions...

Actually, you know what? thanks for the responses but this is a waste of all our times. We both know this isnt going to go anywhere. Sorry for wasting your time.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

Even a sub-forum would be a bad idea, because right away, you're blocking people from discussing the topics before you know if they can remain respectful or not (especially when it comes to new posters)

But just on that point maybe we could all learn something if you could invite the Paranormal mod(s) to share their experiences of how the sub-forum worked there and why it came about?

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Who starts the threads? (the people who are actually interested in the subject matter) Is there a problem yet? Obviously not. The problems arise as the debunkers come in and raise tensions...

How? By offering up an opposing viewpoint with links and evidence, causing the theorist to flip out and start insulting him?

I know what you meant. But what I pointed out above happens too. Again, maybe you can't see the forest for the trees, but it happens both ways. I modded there for about a year. Trust me, I saw it from both sides regularly.

humanji

Brown Bomber wrote: »

For arguments sake let's take that as a given. I think it's also established that the forum is dysfunctional. So what is the root of the problem?

Who starts the threads? (the people who are actually interested in the subject matter) Is there a problem yet? Obviously not. The problems arise as the debunkers come in and raise tensions...

Actually, you know what? thanks for the responses but this is a waste of all our times. We both know this isnt going to go anywhere. Sorry for wasting your time.

It's worth pointing out the odd time where someone who usually is called a sceptic, creates a thread and is jumped on by theorists who think it's funny to give him a taste of his own medicine, as it were. Again, childishness isn't the fault of only one side in the debate.

looksee

I don't go on the CT forum because I know I would find it too irritating, so I just stay out. However. If I post in the Christianity forum I can offer opinions just provided I am not saying 'Christianity is rubbish' or 'If you believe that you believe anything'. You are not supposed to force Christians to keep defending their faith in a general sense. Fair enough. (It is of course the ultimate CT )

So why can't people who post in CT have to stick to the actual argument instead of making generalised anti CT remarks? It is a forum for theories, but you should be able to offer some basis for your argument for or against.

Ken.

superluck wrote: »

Is this difficult to implement?

The CT forum for obvious reasons attract a lot of spammers and trolls but there are can be a lot of discussions there that get ruined.

Atleast if there was a subforum made for members, that would be desirable.

So far, every thread ends up in bans/arguments between people posting..

Start a thread here Forum Requests and see if you get support for it.

Tzar Chasm

looksee wrote: »

I don't go on the CT forum because I know I would find it too irritating, so I just stay out. However. If I post in the Christianity forum I can offer opinions just provided I am not saying 'Christianity is rubbish' or 'If you believe that you believe anything'. You are not supposed to force Christians to keep defending their faith in a general sense. Fair enough. (It is of course the ultimate CT )

So why can't people who post in CT have to stick to the actual argument instead of making generalised anti CT remarks? It is a forum for theories, but you should be able to offer some basis for your argument for or against.

THIS +++++++++++++++ Billions

I've been lurking/posting in the CT forum for a bit now, and this is the Problem, I was under the impression that there was a general Site wide rule on boards of Attack the post not the poster, however all too often the poster or the Source of the material that the poster uses are ridiculed mocked or derided instead of people engaging with the content of the post.

This came up again today as someone called Run to the Hills has posted a rather interesting Documentary on Propaganda which purports to have been created in the DPRK by 'the Glorious Leader' for the edification of his populace.

However rather than a discusion on the rather interesting film there is a discussion on the Posters motives for posting the Film.

This happens a lot, I happenend to be one of the first respondnats to the thread this time around which is why I got sucked into the discussion but normally I find that a thread s already at the second page of tit for tat before I come upon the discussion,
which puts me of from voicing an opinion on the subject as I would deem it pointles to engage in a thread which has already been derailed by what seems to be long standing fueds amongst posters that I find dull, petty and childish.

PseudoFamous

I think making the conspiracy theory forum private would be a terrible idea. If the only posts in there could be about discussing why each theory is true, we would inevitably see the forum devolve into a circlejerk.

I read the conspiracy theory forum a lot. I like it. I don't post all too often though, because I don't have an awful lot to say on either side of the discussion. Despite this, I will gladly try to point out glaring plotholes if needs be, as some of the theories are poorly stringed together and need criticism. It is the very nature of theories to be examined scrupulously before they are taken as fact. To simply say "lol k" when the latest "Lizard People Ate My Baby!" thread pops up would be pointless, and is not how a discussion (or a theory) works.

superluck

Darwin had a theory of evolution but we don't ask those who believe in it to provide evidence it's true because we understand it's just a theory..nothing more, it doesn't require evidence.

Billions of people on this planet pray and worship symbols that represent their supernatural all powerful God and yet nobody questions their sanity or demands evidence these Gods even exist.

As someone already said, imagine If I were to visit the religious forums every single day and demand evidence their God exists.How long would it be before I was permanently banned? ..Even banned from the site for trolling?

In my opinion, religion is no more than theory, but you may have your own beliefs and find that an offensive inflammatory comment.

I completely agree, it is offensive to suggest a medical condition or question the sanity of someone who believes in God.
If someone wants to believe in God, that's fine, who am I to judge that person?

Well, I find it offensive to constantly defend my belief in a particular Conspiracy Theory, especially when I've made enormous effort
to educate the person who clearly doesn't understand what I'm discussing and is either incapable of absorbing information provided or
simply doesn't want to learn about it.

There's a pattern in the behavior and it appears the only aim is to frustrate the original poster rather than engage in any meaningful debate.

The strategy of a few there consists of asking endless inane questions and when provided with answers, simply ignore and
ridicule more. From an OP perspective, this is extremely frustrating because you're not having a healthy discussion, you're just playing a psychological mind game with these people although I suspect that's the desired effect.

It's not unreasonable for a sceptic to make rebuttal based on the information provided by the original poster.
However, it should be expected the sceptic have a basic understanding of the topic being discussed and doesn't require being spoonfed information for 50+ pages before the topic is locked with multiple infractions or bans.

This CT forum is a joke not because of the content in it, it's complete failure because of abuse towards people who genuinely want to discuss theories without being attacked by the usual crowd that visit the forum daily.

I received a 2 week ban for "personal abuse" because I insinuated the behaviour of regular trolls in the CT forum is because of an underlying medical condition or that they have simply nothing better to do in their spare time.

Arguably there is something missing from their lives otherwise they wouldn't spend it antagonising people on the CT forum...they clearly have no interest in CT what so ever but persist in posting there everyday, no matter what the discussion is and it predictably descends into heated exchange of insults.

It has to be said that these trolls are far from being intellectual in any capacity due to their bizarre behaviour.

It's a mystery to me why any sane person would allocate so many hours of the day to argue, ridicule and mock people with a genuine interest in discussing conspiracy theories.

ken wrote:

Start a thread here Forum Requests and see if you get support for it.

That's a good suggestion but most people who had a genuine interest in CT were permanently banned due to arguments with trolls.

PseudoFamous wrote:

I think making the conspiracy theory forum private would be a terrible idea. If the only posts in there could be about discussing why each theory is true, we would inevitably see the forum devolve into a circlejerk.

Theories are just theories, a conjecture, hypothesis, opinion...it shouldn't necessarily require evidence or evaluation of truth because it's just a theory...

I can see why some people have a hard time understanding quantum mechanics.

That's not directed at you personally PseudoFamous, just a wider observation.

Monty Burnz

I'd be one of the people that certain people would like to see excluded from posting on the CT forum. But I consider many CTs to be absolute fact - we've seen them time and again throughout history. A recent example might be the WMD scandal that was used to justify the Iraq invasion - a deliberate misreading of the facts to present a case that the public would (temporarily) swallow to launch a war.

There are other conspiracy theories that are far less certain but merit serious investigation - JFK is my standard example there.

And then there are the conspiracies that are just totally ridiculous (Obama is the biblical anti-Christ, mystery aeroplanes in the sky are poisoning us all, etc. etc.). We see a lot of these on the CT forum and I do what I can to point out how ridiculous they are using logic and evidence. In return, I'm often accused of 'swallowing propaganda' (most humourously in the current thread about North Korean propaganda) or - in extreme cases - I've been accused of being 'one of them' (i.e. part of the conspiracy).

What is the point of posting about a possible conspiracy if you ignore any factual or logical challenge to it? If the theory is true, it will hold up in the face of such a challenge. If the theory is false, isn't it better that you realise it and bin it?

Of course, some people will persist with things that are plainly not true for their own reasons (how many religions are there in the world today? They can't all be right, can they?) but for the neutral reader, it should become clear which theories stand up in the face of these challenges and which ones don't add up.

Monty Burnz

superluck wrote: »

Darwin had a theory of evolution but we don't ask those who believe in it to provide evidence it's true because we understand it's just a theory..nothing more, it doesn't require evidence.

Well no. Scientific theories do require evidence - ideally mountains of it. Which evolution has.

What you are thinking of is a scientific hypothesis - 'I think that maybe the sun orbits the earth'. Then you go looking for the evidence (multiple observations and experiments) that might prove your hypothesis, and when you have the evidence that supports the hypothesis you have a theory.

We could indeed have a 'conspiracy hypothesis' forum, but it would essentially be no different from a fairy story forum if nobody was asked for any evidence for any of their hypotheses...:)

superluck

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'd be one of the people that certain people would like to see excluded from posting on the CT forum. But I consider many CTs to be absolute fact - we've seen them time and again throughout history. A recent example might be the WMD scandal that was used to justify the Iraq invasion - a deliberate misreading of the facts to present a case that the public would (temporarily) swallow to launch a war.

There are other conspiracy theories that are far less certain but merit serious investigation - JFK is my standard example there.

And then there are the conspiracies that are just totally ridiculous (Obama is the biblical anti-Christ, mystery aeroplanes in the sky are poisoning us all, etc. etc.). We see a lot of these on the CT forum and I do what I can to point out how ridiculous they are using logic and evidence. In return, I'm often accused of 'swallowing propaganda' (most humourously in the current thread about North Korean propaganda) or - in extreme cases - I've been accused of being 'one of them' (i.e. part of the conspiracy).

I find accusations of working for the government hilarious too but I have absolutely no problem with any of the content being discussed because after all, they're no different from religious beliefs.

I mean, prove how Jesus turned water into wine or fed 5000 people with a few loaves of bread and fish...people believe this stuff and yet nobody questions it what so ever.

What is the point of posting about a possible conspiracy if you ignore any factual or logical challenge to it? If the theory is true, it will hold up in the face of such a challenge. If the theory is false, isn't it better that you realise it and bin it?

Well if we look at religion again, it's been around for thousands of years and there's no evidence any God exists so I don't have a problem if people want to believe the government spreads harmful chemicals in the atmosphere to control weather or kill people with the help of extraterrestrials...it doesn't matter to me, I just overlook it and read something else.

Why must theories be either True or False? Maybe some of it's true and some isn't.

Is Darwins theory true or false? ...we don't know, it's just a theory.

superluck

Well no. Scientific theories do require evidence - ideally mountains of it. Which evolution has.

It's conjecture at best because the information is inconclusive.

How about dinosaurs?, how were scientists able to document the behaviour of dinosaurs?
Did they have a camera crew sent back in time with scientists to monitor them?

It's all just guesswork, theories which can neither be proved or disproved.
Like Quantum physics, something can be both true and false at the same time.

CTs can't necessarily evaluate to true or false, a person can only provide their own opinion based on available evidence and nothing else.
Nobody is right or wrong unless you have all the facts and that's not possible for a CT...hence "Theory"

We could indeed have a 'conspiracy hypothesis' forum, but it would essentially be no different from a fairy story forum if nobody was asked for any evidence for any of their hypotheses.

I'd be open to a sub forum for that but it's up the admins I believe

Superluck, when us mean old skeptics are asking you for evidence or proof, we aren't really using the strict scientific senses of the word (though from what you're saying you don't quite get what those are either.)

We are asking you what facts or reasoning convinced you (or otherwise think are convincing) that the theory or part of the is true, or even a plausible possibility.

What precisely is the issue with being asked for this?

And then what if the reasons you have for believing or even entertaining the theory are flawed, or based on information that is incorrect, does this not affect it?

Because this is unfortunately how critical discussion goes. If you are presenting a view point people don't agree with you might have to explain why you do and unless your reasons stand up to scrutiny, as most don't in the CT forum, you're not going to convince anyone and makes you wonder why it's worth discussing in the first place.

superluck

And then what if the reasons you have for believing or even entertaining the theory are flawed, or based on information that is incorrect, does this not affect it?

Do sceptics have a problem understanding words from the English language?
You understand what "Theory" means don't you? Or do I have to fetch that information for you also since all your questions in each and every thread are the exact same...it's almost like you copy/paste the questions from notepad.

We're not discussing subjects of scientific nature so why should we conclude in a discussion if something is true or false?

You're in the wrong forum!
Conspiracy Theories are not conclusive so why don't you do us a favour and find something else to do with your time?

Life is short.

Because this is unfortunately how critical discussion goes. If you are presenting a view point people don't agree with you might have to explain why you do and unless your reasons stand up to scrutiny, as most don't in the CT forum, you're not going to convince anyone and makes you wonder why it's worth discussing in the first place.

Fairly hostile tone you have there.
Indicates a superiority complex.

My estimation is you find pleasure in correcting people, patronising them, making them feel inferior to yourself because you're unhappy with yourself.

There's no need to take your problems out on people in the CT forum who are just discussing theories between themselves.

What harm are they doing to you personally?
Why so serious?

Insect Overlord

superluck wrote: »

Do sceptics have a problem understanding words from the English language?
You understand what "Theory" means don't you? Or do I have to fetch that information for you also since all your questions in each and every thread are the exact same...it's almost like you copy/paste the questions from notepad.

We're not discussing subjects of scientific nature so why should we conclude in a discussion if something is true or false?

Oh, the irony...

the·o·ry   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
noun, plural the·o·ries.

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

superluck

superluck wrote: »

[/B]
Do sceptics have a problem understanding words from the English language?
You understand what "Theory" means don't you? Or do I have to fetch that information for you also since all your questions in each and every thread are the exact same...it's almost like you copy/paste the questions from notepad.

We're not discussing subjects of scientific nature so why should we conclude in a discussion if something is true or false?

You're in the wrong forum!
Conspiracy Theories are not conclusive so why don't you do us a favour and find something else to do with your time?

Life is short.

Please refer to the first half of the post.

Superluck, when us mean old skeptics are asking you for evidence or proof, we aren't really using the strict scientific senses of the word (though from what you're saying you don't quite get what those are either.)

We are asking you what facts or reasoning convinced you (or otherwise think are convincing) that the theory or part of the is true, or even a plausible possibility.

If you are not willing to discuss the reasons for your conclusion that the theory/part of the theory is true or at least possible, or are unwilling to entertain the possibility that those reasons are wrong, it's not a discussion.

If you are not concluding it is true, or even concluding that theory is true for the sake of argument, then there is nothing to discuss. As monty pointed out, it would be pretty much the conspiracy fantasy forum where any one could spout out any nonsense they can dream up.

superluck wrote: »

Fairly hostile tone you have there.

I'm not the one making personal attacks and hilariously undermining my own point.

superluck

@Insect Overlord: It's a little more complex than that but thanks for your input, thanks for nothing.

superluck

King Mob wrote: »

Please refer to the first half of the post.


If you are not willing to discuss the reasons for your conclusion that the theory/part of the theory is true or at least possible, or are unwilling to entertain the possibility that those reasons are wrong, it's not a discussion.

What kind of discussion can we have when you don't even understand what's being discussed and have no desire to educate yourself about it, just ask endless inane questions.

I've seen posters make sincere efforts trying to help you understand a topic and you blissfully ignoring the content because of some stupid reason.

If you are not concluding it is true, or even concluding that theory is true for the sake of argument, then there is nothing to discuss. As monty pointed out, it would be pretty much the conspiracy fantasy forum where any one could spout out any nonsense they can dream up.

I've asked you already what your problem is, tell me, what is your problem buddy?
Why are you so obsessed with the CT forum?

I'm not the one making personal attacks and hilariously undermining my own point.

You're very subtle, but there's no point denying it.

superluck

King Mob, you're very judgemental about people posting on the CT forum and you're indirectly responsible for most of the people that genuinely wanted to discuss CT being banned so I hope you're satisfied with those results.

You pretend your questions are sincere but when they're answered sincerely, you just ignore the content and ask more inane questions which clearly shows you to be a time waster.

Maybe you don't see it, but you frustrate people with your own ignorance about the world.

superluck

superluck wrote: »

What kind of discussion can we have when you don't even understand what's being discussed and have no desire to educate yourself about it, just ask endless inane questions.

I've seen posters make sincere efforts trying to help you understand a topic and you blissfully ignoring the content because of some stupid reason.

You're misunderstanding ignorance with pointed questions which are trying to get at why people are convinced by particular conspiracies.

I'm asking these questions to see if the theories are in actually in any way convincing. It's a way of educating myself.
But if you are going to insist then that I should go read or watch some youtube videos, then it is not a discussion and you don't have any interest in educating people.

superluck wrote: »

I've asked you already what your problem is, tell me, what is your problem buddy?
Why are you so obsessed with the CT forum?

I'm not obsessed, I'm just interested like most of the people who post there (my particular favourite topic being the Moon landings).

But again, you've now just spun off into personal attacks when I've just been making as bland and as in offensive posts as I can.

Attacking me undermines your point entirely.
But somehow this will have been my fault...

superluck

Why can't you watch video content?

superluck

superluck wrote: »

Why can't you watch video content?

I do watch videos if they seem interesting.

I don't watch videos if they are 10 hour long series and posted instead of discussion or posted in answer to a question with no indication that the answer is in fact included let alone where it is in the multi hour epic.

The odd times I have watched the films posted like that it rarely contained answer that was claimed to be in it.

And the one time I went into a long video in point by point detail, most of my points were ignored.

Further I'm just not as interested the conclusions of the people in the film as I am with people who I might be able to discuss it with.

If you just want to post videos rather than discuss stuff, there's a thread in CT for that too.

superluck

Most Youtube videos are about 10 minutes long, usually less so they can't all be useless.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that if someone wants to post in a thread Obama is the anti christ, bilderbergers are trying to kill us all or aliens are heating up the planet to make it more inhabitable for lizard people, then that should be allowed and those people shouldn't be ridiculed for not providing evidence.

So would you agree that a sub forum might resolve some of the past issues?

Would it make you happy to have 1 forum that deals with what you feel is fantasy and another that's backed up by evidence as Monty suggested?

superluck

superluck wrote: »

Anyway, the point I'm making is that if someone wants to post in a thread Obama is the anti christ, bilderbergers are trying to kill us all or aliens are heating up the planet to make it more inhabitable for lizard people, then that should be allowed.

And who said it's not allowed. They can post that stuff all they like. But putting their ideas on an open forum means they might have to see people disagree with them and even ask them why they believe in something so fantastic.
Your point is that you wish to forbid a certain viewpoint.

The fact you are posting these examples as silly suggestions when some people on the forum actually believe stuff like it is a fruedian admission that you are dismissing conspiracy theories without "educating yourself" about them.

superluck wrote: »

So would you agree that a sub forum might resolve some of the past issues?

Would it make you happy to have 1 forum that deals with what you feel is fantasy and another that's backed up by evidence as Monty suggested?

No, because 1) it would just freeze up any meaningful discussion and the forum would just become a bunch of threads of youtube links and mini blogs and 2) it would be hypocritical for the idea of a forum that houses free discussion about how people might be conspiring to remove your freedoms to have areas where only certain types of opinion are allowed.

And again, I point out there is and has been for some time a provision in the charter that allows people to exclude certain viewpoints in a thread within reason.
But few have used this and I hope It's because people realise how silly and hypocritical that it.

superluck

I believe the world is controlled by wealthy bankers but you disagree with this...so all I can say is we agree to disagree and leave it at that, how would you feel then?

How do you feel about the billions of people that believe in God?
Should you not be preaching to them about the lack of evidence to prove a God even exists?

superluck

superluck wrote: »

I believe the world is controlled by wealthy bankers but you disagree with this...so all I can say is we agree to disagree and leave it at that, how would you feel then?

Like no discussion actually took place, neither of us learned anything either about the truth or about each others opinions or what they were based on.

That would be a terrible forum.

But what if I asked you what lead you to this belief? What do you think supports it? What if I tried to follow your logic, but found a problem with it, perhaps you had already considered that problem and had a solution to it consistent with a theory.
Answering these posed questions is a discussion.

But then what happens if I did believe the same thing, but believed that it was a different set of bankers? Who's opinion should not be questioned? What would there be to discuss if we don't agree on who's behind it all?

There's nothing about the lines of discussion I suggested above that means it can't be followed in this example as well. But by your rules they would not be allowed because they would involve questioning why your believe something.

superluck wrote: »

How do you feel about the billions of people that believe in God?
Should you not be preaching to them about the lack of evidence to prove a God even exists?

You mean perhaps post about it on say like the Atheist and Agnostic forum when religious people post their opinions there?

superluck

I've studied financial issues for over 4 years now and I know the world is controlled by bankers.

There's evidence all around us that bankers rule the world, far too much in fact that i apologise for saying makes your question seem senseless.

I asked a question on the CT forum in relation to private banks having control of central banks because there is a difference and it's easy to get confused with the difference.

Central banks are supposed to be owned by the people, they create money which the government uses to pay it's employees and then the employees can deposit that money in a private bank. The private bank can then issue it's own loans based on it's capital reserves.

Today however, the government must borrow from the central bank with an interest rate.
Not only that, but the private banks can borrow from the central bank at 0% and lend to the government at 2.5% for a 30 year T Bond. (in the states of course)

This isn't the way it's supposed to work but people seem to ignore it and can't answer why the government is borrowing money from private banks at 2.5% when those private banks are borrowing from the central bank at 0%

Nobody has properly addressed this and I doubt anyone will without conceding that private banks are in control of the central banks and therefore, private banks control the world....because they are the only people that can create money now and are holding governments/countries to ransom.