Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Charter Feedback

Options
  • 25-05-2020 7:24pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭


    Its a bit difficult now that the charter has been unilaterally altered by Overheal, by doing so getting rid of some key points that were beneficial for people posting or starting threads in this specific forum. That charter was created after being debated for a long time in a feedback thread and involved a lot of regular posters.

    So lets try it again is more easily said then done


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 82,268 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    Its a bit difficult now that the charter has been unilaterally altered by Overheal, by doing so getting rid of some key points that were beneficial for people posting or starting threads in this specific forum. That charter was created after being debated for a long time in a feedback thread and involved a lot of regular posters.

    So lets try it again is more easily said then done

    Whining about process with no specifics?

    If you have something constructive to digress on, digress away.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    Whining about process with no specifics?

    If you have something constructive to digress on, digress away.

    You know the specific parts you removed from the charter ... It doesn't make it easier for a conspiracy theorist to debate here ... These measures were in place to give some protection to people posting here .... Now its just a circle jerk of the self righteous

    This thread is the perfect example of such .... Make of it what you want


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,268 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    You know the specific parts you removed from the charter ... It doesn't make it easier for a conspiracy theorist to debate here ... These measures were in place to give some protection to people posting here .... Now its just a circle jerk of the self righteous

    This thread is the perfect example of such .... Make of it what you want

    What is your proposed amendment?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    What is your proposed amendment?

    Kingmob gaslights every poster who disagrees with him. He is allowed to do it and not warned to cut it out. This is a conspiracy forum. Is there a moderator who actually believes conspiracies are real?

    Ufos, jfk and 9/11 example?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    What is your proposed amendment?

    I think the charter was fine the way it was ... It was created after a lot of feedback and input from posters... I don't see a reason to take things out unilaterally. By doing so you changed things considerably for CT ers posting here ... and not for the good imo.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 82,268 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    I think the charter was fine the way it was ... It was created after a lot of feedback and input from posters... I don't see a reason to take things out unilaterally. By doing so you changed things considerably for CT ers posting here ... and not for the good imo.

    What specific measure would a rollback permit that the current charter does not? What things were taken out that you propose be restored?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    What specific measure would a rollback permit that the current charter does not? What things were taken out that you propose be restored?

    If its no biggie then you can restore the charter back to the way it was ... You could put back all the forum specific rules you took out as you made no amendment other then the bigotry add on I can see no benefit of this action

    Maybe you can explain why you felt the need to significantly alter the charter in the first place ? ... Specially in the light that it took a while and effort from us all to create the charter we had ...

    Maybe this could be moved to a feedback thread

    Dont want to upset Dohnjoe to much ;-)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    weisses wrote: »
    If its no biggie then you can restore the charter back to the way it was ... You could put back all the forum specific rules you took out as you made no amendment other then the bigotry add on I can see no benefit of this action

    Maybe you can explain why you felt the need to significantly alter the charter in the first place ? ... Specially in the light it took a while to create the charter we had ...

    Kingmob spends hours on here each day, posting paragraphs pages long, where does he get the time.? Yet can't comment on the info in a ten minute video :confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,268 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    If its no biggie then you can restore the charter back to the way it was ... You could put back all the forum specific rules you took out as you made no amendment other then the bigotry add on I can see no benefit of this action

    Maybe you can explain why you felt the need to significantly alter the charter in the first place ? ... Specially in the light that it took a while and effort from us all to create the charter we had ...

    Maybe this could be moved to a feedback thread

    Dont want to upset Dohnjoe to much ;-)

    You still haven’t said what the problem is, other than you are upset the mods changed the charter without an open comments period. The only actual measure you mentioned was about Bigotry and you mention that as a thing that isn’t wrong with the current charter so I still have no clear understanding of what material problem there is with the language of the current charter?


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,268 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Let's try this again..

    Provide your conspiracy theory for 9/11. Since the last thread turned into a bit of a train-wreck, some simple rules to avoid that (if mod permits)
    1. Be able to provide basic details/timeline for the theory
    2. Supporting evidence only
    3. Avoid "proof by denial"
    4. No mentions of the NIST/Hulsey (for everyone's sanity or else it just turns into a NIST-denial-fest or Hulsey sideshow)

    I guess we will get to that after we adjourn the rules committee :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    You still haven’t said what the problem is, other than you are upset the mods changed the charter without an open comments period. The only actual measure you mentioned was about Bigotry and you mention that as a thing that isn’t wrong with the current charter so I still have no clear understanding of what material problem there is with the language of the current charter?

    And I asked you why the unilateral removal of 2 specific guidelines was a good idea in the light of the trouble we went through to create the rules in the first place... this clusterfukc of a thread can exist because you removed them

    Don't spin this around claiming Im whinging and upset .... what you did was a bit of a dick move ... I spotted it a good while back, and had my reservations, But looking what is allowed in here now, I think a reversal to the agreed charter seems to be a good idea


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,268 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    And I asked you why the unilateral removal of 2 specific guidelines was a good idea in the light of the trouble we went through to create the rules in the first place... this clusterfukc of a thread can exist because you removed them

    Don't spin this around claiming Im whinging and upset .... what you did was a bit of a dick move ... I spotted it a good while back, and had my reservations, But looking what is allowed in here now, I think a reversal to the agreed charter seems to be a good idea

    What 2 guidelines? I’ve asked you three times now to detail the needed changes you propose.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    What 2 guidelines? I’ve asked you three times now to detail the needed changes you propose.

    The 2 specific guidelines you took out ... Or dont you remember which sections you took out ?

    And when you say
    other than you are upset the mods changed the charter without an open comments period.

    Who were the other mods involved??, would be interesting to get their view on this whole debacle

    http://web.archive.org/web/20151030045246/https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056310842

    Old and correct charter here


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,268 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    The 2 specific guidelines you took out ... Or dont you remember which sections you took out ?
    as of what is seemingly 5 years, im really not acutely aware of what measure was rendered obsolete. And I’m on the touch site. I don’t really have the patience to play guessing games, or trying to play spot the difference.

    4th time now please propose your amendment. I would like you to simply copy and paste text you think needs to be added to or removed from the charter. I thought this was a reasonable request.
    Who were the other mods involved??, would be interesting to get their view on this whole debacle

    http://web.archive.org/web/20151030045246/https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056310842

    Old and correct charter here

    Taltos, mike_ie, degrassinoel, and Dav.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    as of what is seemingly 5 years, im really not acutely aware of what measure was rendered obsolete. And I’m on the touch site. I don’t really have the patience to play guessing games, or trying to play spot the difference.

    Not 5 years ... last august you changed it
    Do not demand proof for someone else's theories.
    This forum is for the discussion of Theories: they may not be readily conclusive. Instead, provide a constructive counter-argument. "eg. Lizard people exist in NYC subways!" "Actually a 2017 study found that subways were only populated by rats - [source link]."
    Do not force conclusions.
    Theories inherently are based on some supporting evidence, but that evidence frequently can neither be proven true nor false.

    Rings a bell no ?

    Overheal wrote: »
    Taltos, mike_ie, degrassinoel, and Dav.

    That list is incorrect degrassienoel wasn't a mod anymore when the charter was changed


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Why do I have to propose something to be reinstated when it shouldnt have been removed in the first place ....

    Judging by your sniping comments i can see why you removed the two sections but that doesnt make it right


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,268 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    Why do I have to propose something to be reinstated when it shouldnt have been removed in the first place ....

    Because you out of the blue start going on about a grievance with the charter without mentioning any specifics. As a matter of good taste, it’s important that people be clear with each other on a common set of facts. In addition than that though: your central complaint appeared to be about a lack of clear communication about changes to the charter. So, to facilitate a request to have a more clear and transparent process for amending the charter, it would seem to me that it is QED that it should include a clearly worded statement of facts and a clearly worded motion on what language specifically needs to be amended.

    Thanks so, for sharing the information.

    It is exactly under that same principle, it turns out, I removed these two clauses. The first is genuinely unenforceable, and wasn’t being enforced at any time that I am familiar with in my entire tenure. Both skeptics and truthers bark to see source material for claims of fact. It’s the principle of burden of proof. This clause basically said burden of proof is taboo. As we had long since moved onto a post-truth era, where now we see less rumor than we do active disinformation, I found it illogical to keep the clause.

    The other clause is so strangely worded that it made no clear sense. Again this is also another situation where contributors of all stripes have at times said “case closed” etc. when presenting what they felt were flourishing arguments for why something was so. I can’t think of a situation where it might apply.

    In 2019 I was the only mod to effect this change and I thought it was pretty cut and dry. I don’t recall asking Ancailpadporcha. We had already been working through him looking to step off from CT about a month prior.
    Judging by your sniping comments i can see why you removed the two sections but that doesnt make it right

    Ironic judge snipey comment.

    I do have a PM exchange from you for the month of August last year but I don’t think it was germane to this charter matter. I don’t look to have any PMs from anybody expressing concerns about it. You are expressing concerns now though and that’s fine there’s no SOL on it.

    If these are added back these are things that people are actually going to expect enforced both ways?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    Because you out of the blue start going on about a grievance with the charter without mentioning any specifics. As a matter of good taste, it’s important that people be clear with each other on a common set of facts. In addition than that though: your central complaint appeared to be about a lack of clear communication about changes to the charter. So, to facilitate a request to have a more clear and transparent process for amending the charter, it would seem to me that it is QED that it should include a clearly worded statement of facts and a clearly worded motion on what language specifically needs to be amended.

    Thanks so, for sharing the information.

    Like I said earlier, I noticed the change but thought nothing of it at the time. Now with these stupid threads popping up the two removed sections would have dealt with that. If you unilattery decide to remove two important sections in a charter then it would have been nice if you started this feedback thread at that time .... I would have brought up the same concerns as I have now.
    Overheal wrote: »
    It is exactly under that same principle, it turns out, I removed these two clauses. The first is genuinely unenforceable, and wasn’t being enforced at any time that I am familiar with in my entire tenure. Both skeptics and truthers bark to see source material for claims of fact. It’s the principle of burden of proof. This clause basically said burden of proof is taboo. As we had long since moved onto a post-truth era, where now we see less rumor than we do active disinformation, I found it illogical to keep the clause.

    They are enforceable ....Problem is you don't want to enforce them.

    clause below is enforceable
    This forum is for the discussion of Theories: they may not be readily conclusive. Instead, provide a constructive counter-argument

    This is also enforceable
    Theories inherently are based on some supporting evidence, but that evidence frequently can neither be proven true nor false.]

    Its the nature of the forum that makes these points in the charter viable

    Something that was discussed at length in previous feedback and agreed upon by both posters and mods
    Overheal wrote: »
    In 2019 I was the only mod to effect this change and I thought it was pretty cut and dry. I don’t recall asking Ancailpadporcha. We had already been working through him looking to step off from CT about a month prior.

    Yes you decided by yourself that it wasn't enforceable, It might had something to do with you heavenly involved in the discussions breaking the charter on numerous occasions.
    Overheal wrote: »
    If these are added back these are things that people are actually going to expect enforced both ways?

    Yes why not ... You have 3 mods

    It removes the ridiculous threads that only allow "supporting evidence" ... They don't belong in this forum

    Of course the tumbleweed GIF looks cool but who is able to discuss a conspiracy theory having in mind the nature of this forum with all these restrictions imposed. The mere fact you thanked that post says enough about you as a mod on this forum and the position you maneuvered yourself in


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,854 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Of course the tumbleweed GIF looks cool but who is able to discuss a conspiracy theory having in mind the nature of this forum with all these restrictions imposed. The mere fact you thanked that post says enough about you as a mod on this forum and the position you maneuvered yourself in

    Is there a particular reason 9/11 conspiracy theorists require special treatment and rules?

    By acknowledging any brand of history revision requires "loopholes", we are acknowledging it's nonsense - ergo there's no point in this forum.

    If posters here just want to escape presenting theories and engage in pure denialism, perhaps ask mods to create a denialism forum. That would be far better suited.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,268 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    Like I said earlier, I noticed the change but thought nothing of it at the time. Now with these stupid threads popping up the two removed sections would have dealt with that. If you unilattery decide to remove two important sections in a charter then it would have been nice if you started this feedback thread at that time .... I would have brought up the same concerns as I have now.



    They are enforceable ....Problem is you don't want to enforce them.

    clause below is enforceable



    This is also enforceable



    Its the nature of the forum that makes these points in the charter viable

    Something that was discussed at length in previous feedback and agreed upon by both posters and mods



    Yes you decided by yourself that it wasn't enforceable, It might had something to do with you heavenly involved in the discussions breaking the charter on numerous occasions.



    Yes why not ... You have 3 mods

    It removes the ridiculous threads that only allow "supporting evidence" ... They don't belong in this forum

    Of course the tumbleweed GIF looks cool but who is able to discuss a conspiracy theory having in mind the nature of this forum with all these restrictions imposed. The mere fact you thanked that post says enough about you as a mod on this forum and the position you maneuvered yourself in

    So this boils down to “stupid threads popping up” that you want silenced, because?

    “It removes the ridiculous threads that only allow "supporting evidence" ... They don't belong in this forum”

    That’s what this is about!

    DohnJoe posted a thread where he wanted to establish some ground rules of his own. Those aren’t forum rules. They aren’t enforceable. It’s by gentlemen’s agreement. It’s only good manners to support your own burden of proof. Nobody is being carded or banned for not providing evidence. Similarly, nobody is being carded or banned for acknowledging a posters lack of supporting evidence.

    Was this the problem??


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Is there a particular reason 9/11 conspiracy theorists require special treatment and rules?

    By acknowledging any brand of history revision requires "loopholes", we are acknowledging it's nonsense - ergo there's no point in this forum.

    If posters here just want to escape presenting theories and engage in pure denialism, perhaps ask mods to create a denialism forum. That would be far better suited.

    No special treatment at all ...We had a functioning forum charter which people agreed upon ... You were posting here with that charter in place

    Your demands or rules for a thread don't belong in the CT forum ....With the correct charter in place it wouldn't be allowed


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    So this boils down to “stupid threads popping up” that you want silenced, because?

    No ... try again


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    DohnJoe posted a thread where he wanted to establish some ground rules of his own.

    We have ground rules ... Its called a forum Charter


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,268 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    No ... try again

    Not helpful that.

    Tl dr you are by appearances reacting because DohnJoe wanted to have a discussion thread compiling source material, as far as I can tell. This is what you mean by stupid/ridiculous threads that you don’t like.

    If users want to ask other users to provide their sources I hardly see an issue with that? Though those “thread rules” are not enforceable and mods aren’t going to be the source police, cracking down on every post that isn’t MLA cited or some other slippery slope. If that was your concern.

    If I’m way off base this requires additional clarification on what threads you are complaining about.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    Not helpful that.

    Same as your post before you edited it
    Overheal wrote: »
    Tl dr you are by appearances reacting because DohnJoe wanted to have a discussion thread compiling source material, as far as I can tell. This is what you mean by stupid/ridiculous threads that you don’t like.

    Its the second one he started ..with the first one ending in a klusterfukc of a thread
    Overheal wrote: »
    If users want to ask other users to provide their sources I hardly see an issue with that? Though those “thread rules” are not enforceable and mods aren’t going to be the source police, cracking down on every post that isn’t MLA cited or some other slippery slope. If that was your concern.

    Me neither ....I see nowhere in the old charter that a poster cannot be asked for their sources .. So i don't see the issue ... And yes they are enforceable .... Problem is that they go against your own standpoint in many discussions you participate in so the user overheal conflicts with mod overheal, You corrected this by changing the charter so it suited you better.
    Overheal wrote: »
    If I’m way off base this requires additional clarification on what threads you are complaining about.

    The threads in question being allowed are a direct result of you changing the charter ..So if you change the charter back to the way we all agreed was working, The inappropriately setup threads for the CT forum would by default be closed as well


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,268 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »

    Of course the tumbleweed GIF looks cool but who is able to discuss a conspiracy theory having in mind the nature of this forum with all these restrictions imposed. The mere fact you thanked that post says enough about you as a mod on this forum and the position you maneuvered yourself in

    This one? I didn’t thank it. Seen it being thanked by skeptics and truther alike according the threads OP. Didn’t find it to be terribly harmful. Did you? We don’t have any reports from you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,268 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    Same as your post before you edited it



    Its the second one he started ..with the first one ending in a klusterfukc of a thread



    Me neither ....I see nowhere in the old charter that a poster cannot be asked for their sources .. So i don't see the issue ... And yes they are enforceable .... Problem is that they go against your own standpoint in many discussions you participate in so the user overheal conflicts with mod overheal, You corrected this by changing the charter so it suited you better.



    The threads in question being allowed are a direct result of you changing the charter ..So if you change the charter back to the way we all agreed was working, The inappropriately setup threads for the CT forum would by default be closed as well

    So bottom line you want threads you don’t like, about the facts of 9/11, censored?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    So bottom line you want threads you don’t like, about the facts of 9/11, censored?

    Are you being deliberately obtuse ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    This one? I didn’t thank it. Seen it being thanked by skeptics and truther alike according the threads OP. Didn’t find it to be terribly harmful. Did you? We don’t have any reports from you.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113544124&postcount=3


    Yes you did ... It just emphasize the way you positioned yourself

    What "thruther" thanked that post ?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 82,268 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113544124&postcount=3


    Yes you did ... It just emphasize the way you positioned yourself

    What "thruther" thanked that post ?

    Right so 2 tumbleweed gifs in 2 different threads neither reported?


Advertisement