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
2

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 82,285 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    Are you being deliberately obtuse ?

    You want the rules changed so these “stupid” “ridiculous” threads are not allowed here yes?

    I don’t think I’ve missed anything


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    Right so 2 tumbleweed gifs in 2 different threads neither reported?

    Why should they be reported ? .... I just used it to point out the way you positioned yourself in this forum


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,285 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    Why should they be reported ? .... I just used it to point out the way you positioned yourself in this forum

    “Positioned?”


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    You want the rules changed so these “stupid” “ridiculous” threads are not allowed here yes?

    I don’t think I’ve missed anything

    The forum rules were changed to prevent these kind of threads and line of discussions in the CT forum, this was achieved with the input from posters and mods. You

    You somehow decided to change it unilaterally for no apparent reason ... And then make it somehow my problem

    The reason you gave is not a valid one ... I explained why I think you did this.

    Maybe we could get a Cmod involved or bring it to sitewide feedback ... You seem to be oblivious as to why the changes you made to the charter are a problem for this forum


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,285 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    The forum rules were changed to prevent these kind of threads and line of discussions in the CT forum, this was achieved with the input from posters and mods. You

    You somehow decided to change it unilaterally for no apparent reason ... And then make it somehow my problem

    The reason you gave is not a valid one ... I explained why I think you did this.

    Maybe we could get a Cmod involved or bring it to sitewide feedback ... You seem to be oblivious as to why the changes you made to the charter are a problem for this forum
    Your complaints relate to the exist of a thread or two that you find objectionable. It’s not as though the forum is crippled for the bandwidth. So no I’m not seeing why the changes are necessary. Now, I get the impression that were these rules in the charter you would be browbeating to have these threads locked down for wanting to deal in the realm of facts and science.


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    Your complaints relate to the exist of a thread or two that you find objectionable. It’s not as though the forum is crippled for the bandwidth. So no I’m not seeing why the changes are necessary. Now, I get the impression that were these rules in the charter you would be browbeating to have these threads locked down for wanting to deal in the realm of facts and science.

    These rules were in the charter for a reason ....

    Explain why it was all of a sudden necessary to remove them. Dont come up with the empty phrase of it being unenforceable.. I showed you it is ... and it was enforceable for the previous 5 years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,285 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    These rules were in the charter for a reason ....

    Explain why it was all of a sudden necessary to remove them. Dont come up with the empty phrase of it being unenforceable.. I showed you it is ... and it was enforceable for the previous 5 years.
    I don’t frankly recall. I do know that upon review of the section I found it to be non enforceable. As if it should be an infraction to ask for burden of proof?


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    I don’t frankly recall. I do know that upon review of the section I found it to be non enforceable. As if it should be an infraction to ask for burden of proof?

    You still don't get it.

    IMO You couldn't enforce it because it would compromise you as a poster... hence it was easier to remove the relevant sections ... You went a bit gung ho as a mod and are now trying to deflect it into my problem

    I think this has run its course here ..I will take it up with a cmod and/or sitewide feedback if needed


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,285 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    You still don't get it.

    IMO You couldn't enforce it because it would compromise you as a poster... hence it was easier to remove the relevant sections ... You went a bit gung ho as a mod and are now trying to deflect it into my problem

    I think this has run its course here ..I will take it up with a cmod and/or sitewide feedback if needed

    So I would have to card you just now for demanding proof in the free fall thread?


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    So I would have to card you just now for demanding proof in the free fall thread?

    Is it in the charter ?

    Is demanding the same as asking ?

    Plus I wasnt demanding proof for your theory ... you need to present one first


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 82,285 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    Is it in the charter ?

    In your view it is.


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    In your view it is.


    It was .... It was taken out ..remember


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,285 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    It was .... It was taken out ..remember

    Indeed. If it goes back cards and warnings would be bandied about for people asking others to provide evidence for their claims.

    “Juice packs really do make frogs gay that’s a fact”

    “Where’s your evidence?” /breach of forum charter

    I don’t see it happening. The other CT mods and CMods are free to chime in here as well.


  • Registered Users Posts: 71,799 ✭✭✭✭Ted_YNWA


    This is the point that was completely removed.
    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]."


    Are you wanting to make any old claim you want safe in the knowledge that it can't be questioned? Without being challenged to either expand or clarify anything further on what you are claiming.

    This is not an echo chamber to only post Pro-CT viewpoints.


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    Indeed. If it goes back cards and warnings would be bandied about for people asking others to provide evidence for their claims.

    “Juice packs really do make frogs gay that’s a fact”

    “Where’s your evidence?” /breach of forum charter

    I don’t see it happening. The other CT mods and CMods are free to chime in here as well.

    Again ... asking for proof is different then demanding it

    We had this discussion in feedback with mods cmods posters I even think Dav himself was involved and based a charter on all the feedback and input

    You have your own agenda as to why you removed the 2 sections and it has nothing to do with it not being enforceable .. that reason is a cheap cop out


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


    Ted_YNWA wrote: »
    Are you wanting to make any old claim you want safe in the knowledge that it can't be questioned? Without being challenged to either expand or clarify anything further on what you are claiming.

    This is not an echo chamber to only post Pro-CT viewpoints.

    No its not

    You might want to familiarize yourself with the history and issues of this forum before making these statements

    one of the removed sections was
    Do not force conclusions.
    Theories inherently are based on some supporting evidence, but that evidence frequently can neither be proven true nor false.

    Which is a valid and fair section for a forum such as this

    Now we have a thread open with someone demanding Supporting evidence only, In other words ( proving a claim to be true) Which is something that should not be demanded in a conspiracy theory forum.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Now we have a thread open with someone demanding Supporting evidence only,

    This one?

    To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

    "Straightforward enough, explain what alternatively caused the building to collapse with normal evidence, sources and information (not infowars, conspiracy sites and random blog stuff please)

    Since I have a long history with this whole 911 thing, it's highly likely that individuals may attempt to divert or deflect back to attacking the NIST or details - many other threads cover that, this is a thread about alternative theories and looking at the supporting evidence behind those theories"
    In other words ( proving a claim to be true) Which is something that should not be demanded in a conspiracy theory forum.

    According to who? you?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Now we have a thread open with someone demanding Supporting evidence only, In other words ( proving a claim to be true) Which is something that should not be demanded in a conspiracy theory forum.
    Supporting evidence isn't the same thing as proof.

    Supporting evidence is the simply verifiable facts and reasonable conjecture that lead you to a certain conclusion. In other words, the reasons you believe something.

    If the facts you use are actually true and your conjecture is indeed reasonable, your conclusion can be valid even if it's not "proven."

    I don't get the objection to posting the reasons for believing a conspiracy theory rather than just attacking the conclusion accepted by most people.


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    According to who? you?

    No its the nature of the forum which makes it a not workable approach


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    Supporting evidence isn't the same thing as proof.

    Supporting evidence is the simply verifiable facts and reasonable conjecture that lead you to a certain conclusion. In other words, the reasons you believe something.

    If the facts you use are actually true and your conjecture is indeed reasonable, your conclusion can be valid even if it's not "proven."

    I don't get the objection to posting the reasons for believing a conspiracy theory rather than just attacking the conclusion accepted by most people.

    I gave you the definition of supporting evidence .... make of it what you want


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    No its the nature of the forum which makes it a not workable approach

    What is the nature of the forum..

    To attack evidence of theories in order to replace them with theories for which there is no evidence?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    I gave you the definition of supporting evidence .... make of it what you want
    Yes, and your definition is incorrect.
    Supporting evidence is not proof. It's simply the evidence you use to show your belief is reasonable and backed with something other than imagination and fantasy.


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, and your definition is incorrect.
    Supporting evidence is not proof. It's simply the evidence you use to show your belief is reasonable and backed with something other than imagination and fantasy.

    Supporting evidence needs to have proof of the validity of the point you want to make so yes For a belief to be correct you need supporting evidence with proof to make it viable supporting evidence

    At this stage i suggest you look it up ...


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    What is the nature of the forum..

    To attack evidence of theories in order to replace them with theories for which there is no evidence?

    Im shocked you dont have a clue about the nature of the forum, Yes replace them with theories, preferably with a bit of context and supporting documentation ...But in general that is sufficient for a Conspiracy THEORY forum


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Im shocked you dont have a clue about the nature of the forum, Yes replace them with theories, preferably with a bit of context and supporting documentation ...But in general that is sufficient for a Conspiracy THEORY forum

    You aren't shocked, you are just trying pigeon-hole debate here to suit your personal beliefs on the matter

    Evidence doesn't mix well with your beliefs on this subject, so you are trying to remove it from the equation

    That's really extraordinary. Pause a moment and actually think about your position there..


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You aren't shocked, you are just trying pigeon-hole debate here to suit your personal beliefs on the matter

    I am ... You claiming the high ground without having a clue as to what kind of forum you are posting in and the certain rules that apply
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Evidence doesn't mix well with your beliefs on this subject, so you are trying to remove it from the equation

    En contraire ..I believe in evidence ... The problem is this forum is not for " debate with evidence only" Im surprised you cannot differentiate between the two
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    That's really extraordinary. Pause a moment and actually think about your position there..

    My position is that of someone who was happy with a forum charter that took a lot of effort from posters mods cmods and admins to construct

    And not so happy a Mod took it upon himself to remove certain parts because it compromises him as a poster and mod

    So yes I paused and thought about it


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    My position is that

    Your position is that you want to this forum to argue 9/11 beliefs without having to provide supporting evidence

    Wait, one side has to use supporting evidence. The other doesn't. The one that you represent.

    That's your personal opinion, noted. We get it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Supporting evidence needs to have proof of the validity of the point you want to make so yes For a belief to be correct you need supporting evidence with proof to make it viable supporting evidence

    At this stage i suggest you look it up ...

    I'm sorry, your definitions are simply incorrect.

    Lets try it another way.
    What's the difference between a conspiracy theory you don't believe in and a conspiracy theory you do? How do you personally tell the difference between a valid conspiracy theory and an invalid one?


    Many people, including those at AE9/11 hold that no planes hit any of the buildings and that they were holograms.
    Experts with long lists of credentials claim the buildings were destoryed with space based energy weapons.

    Should we view these theories as the same as ones like nanothermite and explosives? If not, why not?


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Your position is that you want to this forum to argue 9/11 beliefs without having to provide supporting evidence

    Wait, one side has to use supporting evidence. The other doesn't. The one that you represent.

    That's your personal opinion, noted. We get it.

    No ... try again .. you still seem unable to differentiate between the two


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    I'm sorry, your definitions are simply incorrect.

    My definitions are correct .... they dont suit you perhaps but they are correct


Advertisement