Question: Which statement best represents this CT forum in your opinion?

Veni Vedi Vici

Question: Which statement best represents this CT forum in your opinion?

• An online interactive forum focusing on conspiracy theory that caters for conspiracy theorists, is moderated by conspiracy theorists and protects the intentions of conspiracy theorists.

• An online interactive forum focusing on conspiracy theory that caters for skeptics, is moderated by skeptics and restricts the intentions of conspiracy theorists.

I feel its a valid politcal question that I'd like to throw out there. Please don't incorrectly assume that the objective of this thread is to finger-point or highlight any specific individual. I'm talking about the forum as a whole.

I already appreciate that many people will argue that they enjoy the balance that a cynical inquisitive mind will bring to the enthusiastic CT’er. I’m not questioning this in any way. I am however questioning which way in your opinions does the forum sway.

(I don't want to use a poll mods - its just a discussion)

nyarlothothep

An interesting thread

I would describe it as a messy melting pot of skeptics and ct'ers. While the forum is moderated by skeptics, predominantly, I've seen a lot of the funkier conspiracy ideas being posted. So fairly lenient I should think. Its a back and forth between the mulders and scullys,also kind of circular and obsessional, like there must be a million flouride in the water and apocalypse threads. I like the messiness of it though, it leads to more interesting debate rather than just defacto conspiracy thinking or defacto skepticism. Its fairly liberal around here.

espinolman

I think that some of the skeptics on this forum are not really skeptics at all , they are just trying to appear skeptical , but in reality they know a lot more than they would lead you to believe , i know who they are , there are fewer skeptics than you think posting on this forum .

nyarlothothep

Go on, out them, I think I know some you know about

jonbravo

espinolman wrote: »

I think that some of the skeptics on this forum are not really skeptics at all , they are just trying to appear skeptical , but in reality they know a lot more than they would lead you to believe , i know who they are , there are fewer skeptics than you think posting on this forum .

im both a cter and a skeptic but i agree with you on that!!

Kernel

espinolman wrote: »

I think that some of the skeptics on this forum are not really skeptics at all , they are just trying to appear skeptical , but in reality they know a lot more than they would lead you to believe , i know who they are , there are fewer skeptics than you think posting on this forum .

You think Bonkey is a disinfo agent? Ahhh reminds me of the old threads... anyway OP, the second one.

Mahatma coat

I'd lean towards Option 2 as well

although maybe it could be framed in a different manner



as for the Funkier threads nyarlothothep, I've seen some fairly reasonable threads locked and deleted before they ever got off the ground too, like the one about petrol prices and the price gouging CONSPIRACY, I had a long reply to the OP typed out, something distracted me for a few minutes and by the time I posted it the thread had been locked.



also nyarlothothep on a slight tangent, Can you give us a pronunciation key for your Nick, or an abbreviation Pls.

bonkey

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Question: Which statement best represents this CT forum in your opinion?

• An online interactive forum focusing on conspiracy theory that caters for conspiracy theorists, is moderated by conspiracy theorists and protects the intentions of conspiracy theorists.

• An online interactive forum focusing on conspiracy theory that caters for skeptics, is moderated by skeptics and restricts the intentions of conspiracy theorists.

I feel its a valid politcal question that I'd like to throw out there.

Imagine the rest of this post in bold. Following VVV's suggestion that it looks too much like shouting, I'm not bolding it for ease of reading

I feel its a loaded question.

In each option, there is one type of moderator. That type of moderator is inextricably linked to protecting/restricting the intentions of conspiracy theorists.

Whether it was your intention or not, you've asked a question which is little more than asking to choose between whether the moderators are biased towards skeptics, or biased towards conspiracy theorists...and adding some padding of what the implication of such bias would be, as well as suggesting that the moderator will be biased towards what they themselves believe in.

The purpose of this forum should be to provide a forum where both conspiracy theorists and skeptics can discuss conspiracy theories. The moderators should be there to protect the interests of both sides, regardless of their own personal leanings or beliefs.

If you're suggesting that there is bias, or asking others to suggest that there is bias, then I would suggest that this is not a "valid political question", but rather either an issue for discussing the charter, or for Feedback.

Having said all that, I'm going to let this thread run. Here's my prediction, though...

The conspiracy theorists will mostly side with the notion that the moderators are against them. They will probably limit it to "some of the moderators". They will argue that skeptics are given too much of a free hand, while they themselves are unfairly clamped down on. They may complain about the skeptics always falling back on the tired old arguments of asking for proof, and being allowed get away with dismissing an idea because of the sources.

The skeptics, on the other hand, will tend more towards suggesting that there is a balanced approach, although some will suggest that there is far too much leeway given to conspiracy theorists, particularly when it comes to issues like racism or other forms of bigotry. They may complain about what the conspiracy theorists offer as "proof" and that we, as moderators, somehow allow them to get away with it.

In other words, both sides will tend to see that we give the other side too much leeway. Neither side will be unanimous in their stance.

ETA: I also note that despite asking the question, you haven't offered your own answer. Are you going to?

espinolman

Kernel wrote: »

You think Bonkey is a disinfo agent? Ahhh reminds me of the old threads... anyway OP, the second one.

No i don't think bonkey is a disinfo agent , i think one or more of the posters are more than one individual , you see more than one person can post under the same username , there might be a network involved !

6th

Excellent post bonkey (as always).

bonkey wrote: »

In each option, there is one type of moderator. That type of moderator is inextricably linked to protecting/restricting the intentions of conspiracy theorists.

Whether it was your intention or not, you've asked a question which is little more than asking to choose between whether the moderators are biased towards skeptics, or biased towards conspiracy theorists...and adding some padding of what the implication of such bias would be, as well as suggesting that the moderator will be biased towards what they themselves believe in.

The purpose of this forum should be to provide a forum where both conspiracy theorists and skeptics can discuss conspiracy theories. The moderators should be there to protect the interests of both sides, regardless of their own personal leanings or beliefs.

If you're suggesting that there is bias, or asking others to suggest that there is bias, then I would suggest that this is not a "valid political question", but rather either an issue for discussing the charter, or for Feedback.

Agree 100% with this.

The things is though some people would presume I would side with the CT'er because of both my activity on the paranormal forum and my subsquent clashes with the skeptics of Boards. The fact of the matter is I have alot of time for both sides and I've a feeling both sides can see that.

So do I fit into either type of mod outlined in the OP?

6th

espinolman wrote: »

No i don't think bonkey is a disinfo agent , i think one or more of the posters are more than one individual , you see more than one person can post under the same username , there might be a network involved !

And thats a Ct all in itself

Seriously though, account sharing and dual accounts will not be tolerated. There is no way for us to know about sharing but dual accounts can be checked.

Also the same goes for this thread as did the "paid posters" thread. No singling out individual posters - hinting at it might seem clever but dont expect to get away with it.

Penn

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Question: Which statement best represents this CT forum in your opinion?

• An online interactive forum focusing on conspiracy theory that caters for conspiracy theorists, is moderated by conspiracy theorists and protects the intentions of conspiracy theorists.

• An online interactive forum focusing on conspiracy theory that caters for skeptics, is moderated by skeptics and restricts the intentions of conspiracy theorists.

I feel its a valid politcal question that I'd like to throw out there. Please don't incorrectly assume that the objective of this thread is to finger-point or highlight any specific individual. I'm talking about the forum as a whole.

I already appreciate that many people will argue that they enjoy the balance that a cynical inquisitive mind will bring to the enthusiastic CT’er. I’m not questioning this in any way. I am however questioning which way in your opinions does the forum sway.

(I don't want to use a poll mods - its just a discussion)

To be honest, I can't believe such a question is being asked on this forum, because like the majority of conspiracy theories here, the answer simply isn't black or white. I feel there is quite an even balance here. As far as the mods go, I can only say, they are far more lenient than I would be

Veni Vedi Vici

@ nyarlothothep: I see where coming from and I agree that there is indeed a balance but every societal (yes, I consider us a society) balance leans to one pole more than the other, hence the question. I also agree with how you find the forum liberal in a positive sense.

@ espinolman: I don't want to encourage anyone to single out any specific names in relation to this nor do I want to spark the discussion. Since you brought it up I will reply briefly. Certain 'skeptics' within this forum I believe to have found what they would consider a goldmine for bumping up their own ego. Perhaps the easist thread topics to dismiss on boards are those found in the CT forum. Heck, they're conspiracy theories. They wouldn't be known as such if they could be proven in the first place. I'd probably frown less at this if I were to see these 'false' skeptics so adeptly dismiss threads found in the economics or paleontology forums.

I just don't think saying 'no' or 'prove it' all the time should make the grade. If certain skeptics were to be brutally honest we'd find that some of them don't actually believe in conspiracy theories at all. They simply pop in for some quarry. In my mind they should have no business here at all less they are even minutely advocating at least one theory (I know this isn't how the forum works, its just my opinion).

I have a dream (yes, I'm being melodramatic) where every frequently contributing member of this thread (there's about 20 of us) announces their political affiliation (conspiracy theorist, skeptic, hybrid, partial etc.). Thereafter they would each announce what conspiracy theory's they actually subscribe to (i.e. believe in).

On a sidenote I'd simply settle for the skeptics to announce what theory's they believe in. My ulterior motive for this would be streamline the decision making process for the CT'er & Skeptic Collaboration thread. I suspect and perhaps rightly so that many skeptics are afraid to step out and become vulnerable by way of putting their credibility on the line by declaring exactly what it they subscribe to. For the skeptics that simply don't believe in any lone theory at all then fine, at least we'd know where they stand. It's not asking much other than a little transparency. This level of personal visibility would simutaneously instill positive boundries (CT'ers won't waste as much time trying to convince a non-believing skeptic) and fluidity (the clarity of knowing what other members share your beliefs).

This could be achieved as a once off endeavour of self-declaration within this very thread. What I'd like to suggest is that we voluntarily add a small and non-invasive graphical tag to each of our signatures. It would convey what the given members political stance is and a summation of the theories they subscribe to. I'll create one this evening and at it to my signature as an example. I don't want anyone drawing a correlation between this and electronic tagging / RFID chips et al.

@ Kernel: Option 2, eh? Thanks for the input

@ Mahatma coat: Option 2 as well, eh? I'm haven't observed the unfair closing of any thread in my time here thus far but that's not to say it hasn't happened. I guess what you're indirectly suggesting is a third option:

An online interactive forum focusing on conspiracy theory that poses as if its catering for conspiracy theorists , is moderated by disinformants and shillers posing as skeptics and restricts the intentions of conspiracy theorists.

And yes, I would like to know how to pronounce his name too. I keep on reading it as "nial-of-the-harps" in my mind.

@ bonkey: My eardrums thank you but yes, I can apreciate how this may come across as a loaded question. Maybe I should explain it a little better for each of us all:

1.1 and 1.2 illustrates the extreme politcal moderating poles of this forum. I accept that it may have read as if my provisions were polar. In layman's terms it may have read 'Are the moderators biased to skeptics or CT'ers?'. Honestly, this simply wasn't my intention I assure sure. My question is far more concerned with the perimeter illustrated in 1.3. It deals with neither of the poles. Instead it focuses on deviation (albeit significant or inconsequential) from the political centre of the forum as illustrated in 1.4. It's much more concerned with the forum as a whole rather than any summation of individuals e.g. moderators.

I contentedly believe that this forum is politically balanced by way of non-polar moderation. However no-one can contest the fact that there exists a sway in the political balance of the forum. It's highly unlikley that this forum is metrically and perfectly exact in terms of political balance whether this deviation be significant or inconsequential as aforementioned. Here's what I' trying to ask I guess.

In which way does the deviation from the political centre (see 1.3) does the forum sway (see 1.4)?

• Policically towards CT'ers. (see 1.2)
• Politically towards skeptics. (see 1.1)
  

I feel it's a valid political question. For me it endows me with an insight into how the forum functions as whole or as a collective. You seemed to have honed in on specific individuals rather than a political collective though I can understand how the incorrect phrasing of my initial question may have inadvertanty caused this. Hopefully the restructured question and provisions will be more to your tastes and prompt less discussion of moderation alone rather than the collective alone.

My answer: Option 2.

@ 6th: I agree. I'm not putting my two cents in to engage in a converstion that's concerned with paid 'disinformants' or 'shillers'.

@ paddyirishman: Hopefully my response to bonkey will have capabably addressed your comments.

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

I think that some of the skeptics on this forum are not really skeptics at all , they are just trying to appear skeptical , but in reality they know a lot more than they would lead you to believe , i know who they are , there are fewer skeptics than you think posting on this forum .

I think the above post by me was misunderstood , the intention of posting that was not to single any posters out , no the intention of posting this is to point out that perhaps there are not as many skeptics as one would think because some of the posters are very clever , which i consider good if they are .

bonkey

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

@ bonkey: My eardrums thank you but yes, I can apreciate how this may come across as loaded question. Maybe I should explain it a little better for each of us all:

1.1 and 1.2 illustrates the extreme politcal moderating poles of this forum. I accept that it may have read as if my provisions were polar.

There's no "may" about it. You asked which of the two positions best described the forum. You didn't ask people to indicate which they would tend towards, and how far towards it from a notional center of balance.

If someone was to actually answer the question asked, all they could do is choose points 1.1 or 1.2 in your graph, without being able to indicate how accurate they felt it was.

Honestly, this simply wasn't my intention I assure sure.

I have made no assumptions about your intention. To be honest...your intention is secondary to me. You asked people two choose which of two equally unpalatable options are the "best representation" of moderation in this forum. I made my objection to the question, not to what your intention might have been.

My question is far more concerned with the perimeter illustrated in 1.3. It deals with neither of the poles.

Your question was concerned with nothing of the sort, although I accept that you may have been. The only way you would gain information on such a perimiter is if people don't answer the question asked, but rather choose to provide nuance and detail beyond what was asked.

You asked a binary question. Your desire to achieve non-binary results could only be achieved by people answering something other than what was asked.

Instead it focuses on deviation (albeit significant or inconsequential) from the political centre of the forum as illustrated in 1.4.

The "political center" wasn't offered as an option, so it would be impossible to determine deviation from such unless people answer something other than the question asked.

It's much more concerned with the forum as a whole rather than any summation of individuals e.g. moderators.

I've already explained why I don't believe this to be the case. You may be concerned with that, but your question was not.

What a forum caters for is determined by its moderators.
Who's interests it protects or restructs is determined by its moderators. The beliefs of the moderators are - obviously - determined by the moderators.

Everything the question references comes directly from the moderators and nature of moderation.

Again, I stress that I accept that you may be concerned with what you have clarified here, but my objection was to the question posed.

Clearly - given the type of detailed analysis that you have clarified to be interested in - you're a smart guy with more than a passing interest in analysis. I'm therefore hoping that you can see the distinction I am making between what your intentions and those which one can derive from the question.

Your new version of the question is more in line with your stated intentions. For me, though, it would beg clarification of what you mean by "political". There is no politics (that I can see) unless you are referring to the moderation.

It may be that ultimately what you're asking is "who has the upper hand"...and that you feel its not who you think it should be. If that's the case, then its a matter for the Opinions thread.

@ all: I just don't think saying 'no' or 'prove it' all the time should make the grade.

I've heard this complaint before, but I'm generally at a loss to understand it.

If "no" doesn't make the grade, then neither does "yes"...but I don't find those who object to "no" making an objection at the same time to unfounded positives.

Similarly, if someone can claim something to be a fact, then asking them to prove it should equally be allowable. This cuts both ways...there have been any number of threads where it is those supporting the "mainstream" who have been told that they can't prove their position to be correct, and therefore it is reasonable to question it.

Regarding "proof": if someone can supply their sources, it is reasonable to ask them why they put faith in such sources, or indeed to explain why others may find such sources suspect. This, again, cuts both ways. If we think back to the whole myriad of threads surrounding the events of September 11, 2001, there are no shortage of posters here who challenged the veracity of such things as the NIST reports because of who produced them

If certain skeptics were to be brutally honest we'd find that some of them don't actually believe in conspiracy theories at all. They simply pop in for some quarry. In my mind they should have no business here at all less they are even minutely advocating at least one theory (I know this isn't how the forum works, its just my opinion).

You're right - thats not how the forum works.

If you - or anyone else - wants to discuss this point, they can take it to the stickied Opinions thread.

I have a dream (yes, I'm being melodramatic) where every frequently contributing member of this thread (there's about 20 of us) announces their political affiliation (conspiracy theorist, skeptic, hybrid, partial etc.). Thereafter they would each announce what conspiracy theory's they actually subscribe to (i.e. believe in).

What possible reason could you have for that? That's a genuine question. I can think of reasons...but I try to avoid ascribing motive to posters actions where I can.

On a sidenote I'd simply settle for the skeptics to announce what theory's they believe in. My ulterior motive for this would be streamline the decision making process for the CT'er & Skeptic Collaboration thread.

I don't see how. Your proposed collaboration will only work if people "sign on board". Those people can then tell you - publically or privately - which you the proposals they would be interested in. How will your process be streamlined by people who are not interested in collaboration telling you anything? If anything, you'd add noise, rather than achieving streamlining.

For the skeptics that simply don't believe in any lone theory at all then fine, at least we'd know where they stand. It's not asking much other than a little transparency. This level of personal visibility would simutaneously instill positive boundries (CT'ers won't waste as much time trying to convince a non-believing skeptic) and fluidity (the clarity of knowing what other members share your beliefs).

I disagree. This level of "personal visibility" would be a clear and conscious shift from the principle of distinguishing between post and poster.

This could be achieved as a once off endeavour of self-declaration within this very thread.

I won't stop anyone from taking you up on your suggestion. I would strongly recommend to everyone, however, that they do not do so until you have led by example.

I will, however, take action if there is any attempts from anyone to pressure people to take part, or to belittle them in any way for not taking part.

I don't want anyone drawing a correlation between this and electronic tagging. RFID chips et al.

Witty though your comment may be intended to be, I would point out that you are asking many people who are suspicious by nature to divulge clear information about their stance and beliefs. If this were information that one could freely figure out by reading the forum, then it would be superfluous and unnecessary...so the possibility of ulterior motive cannot be ruled out...whether that be to find information about those who make claims, or to infer information about those who do not.

Again let me stress that I am not ascribing motive. I am merely pointing out that you are asking people on a Conspiracy Theories forum to divulge information and to trust you (and boards.ie) in terms of what it would be used for.

6th

6th wrote: »

No singling out individual posters - hinting at it might seem clever but dont expect to get away with it.

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Certain 'skeptics' within this forum I believe to have found what they would consider a goldmine for bumping up their own ego.

......

6th wrote: »

Perhaps the easist thread topics to dismiss on boards are those found in the CT forum.

Seriously, have you been to the Paranormal Forum?

nyarlothothep

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'd lean towards Option 2 as well

although maybe it could be framed in a different manner



as for the Funkier threads nyarlothothep, I've seen some fairly reasonable threads locked and deleted before they ever got off the ground too, like the one about petrol prices and the price gouging CONSPIRACY, I had a long reply to the OP typed out, something distracted me for a few minutes and by the time I posted it the thread had been locked.



also nyarlothothep on a slight tangent, Can you give us a pronunciation key for your Nick, or an abbreviation Pls.

Narlo is ok.

meglome

I agree with Bonkey on this. You asked the wrong questions or at least not enough questions.

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

You think Bonkey is a disinfo agent? Ahhh reminds me of the old threads... anyway OP, the second one.

Not directed at you Kernel but how can Bonkey be a disinfo agent? He questions everybody and everyone on almost every subject. He doesn't take anything at face value, he's the perfect all round sceptic imo. I've asked this before but surely it's the people who will not accept they are mistaken even when shown in great detail they are, surely it's these people that are the possible disinfo agents? (Not that I'm convinced they exist in the first place)

Mahatma coat

ah Meglome, I think kernell was just being nostalgic

the paid posters conspiracy has been proven tho, have a look at the Mantonmoreland debacle on Wiki

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

ah Meglome, I think kernell was just being nostalgic

the paid posters conspiracy has been proven tho, have a look at the Mantonmoreland debacle on Wiki

Sure which is why I said it wasn't directed at him, just a general point.

I'm not suggesting that people are never paid to post on forums. I mean you only have to look at the property forum on boards.ie a couple of years back. There were lots of posters saying the boom would never end and all of a sudden they disappeared with the boom. Not suspicious at all :rolleyes: But the idea of disinfo agents as described in here though I'm not convinced about. I think the 'truth' movement has so many people saying crazy things day in and day out I really doubt you'd need disinfo agents. It doesn't mean it never happened just on the balance of probabilities they wouldn't be needed so why bother.

6th

The topic. Stay on it.