A 3rd Pro-CT Mod For CT Forum

King Mob

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Think about it...I have nothing against skeptics, but why are they there in a CT forum at all?

Maybe because they're interested in the subject but didn't reach the same conclusions you did?

humanji

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

What you need to understand is that it is not isolated posts that may fly under the radar, that is to be expected. The problem for me is the agressive, comptemptious underbelly of hostility against all who put forward CT thoughts by the majority there who are skeptics.

To make it clear, I have no problem being questioned, corrected or whatever just with being disrespected.

Think about it...I have nothing against skeptics, but why are they there in a CT forum at all?

There's a lot of hostility from both sides in that forum. If someone gets out of hand, report them or ignore them (though you should report them). That's the only way to deal with someone who you feel is getting antagonistic. If you keep responding to them and not reporting them, then they are not getting the message that they should stop.

Overheal

What you need to understand is that it is not isolated posts that may fly under the radar, that is to be expected. The problem for me is the agressive, comptemptious underbelly of hostility against all who put forward CT thoughts by the majority there who are skeptics.

To make it clear, I have no problem being questioned, corrected or whatever just with being disrespected.

Think about it...I have nothing against skeptics, but why are they there in a CT forum at all?

Probably for the same reason Atheists and Christians very often cross-post into the other's respective forum. Theological - or in this case - Ideological debate.

Here as an example is the most recent posted in thread on the forum.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2055559178

8 of the first 10 posts here were mocking the ideas of the OP.

There was nothing wrong with the first 2 comments. You appear the first one to raise any hostility to another poster on the thread, here. Bear in mind the posts you find offensive to the OP was in fact thanked by the OP. Big difference between cracking a toothpaste joke and trying to - in effect - tell another poster to shove off.

Personally I think its about growing a thicker skin or wearing a shinier hat tbh. If every chrisitian poster threw his toys out the pram every time an Atheist argued we have no proof of Pink Unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters - well, the forums in question wouldn't function. Theres nothing offensive or disrespectful about pointing out Pink Unicorns can't be proven. Because they can't.

BlitzKrieg

A gay guy goes to a visit a gay club. He wants to meet & talk with likeminded people free from discrimination and ridicule he faces daily due to his situation.

Once he gets in its not what he expected at all. Rather that just fellow homo-sexuals what he encounters is a majority of straight men. Strangely some of these straight men are regulars, despite there being a straight (skeptic) club across the road.

sounds like the george to me.

6th

I'm only gonna say a few things about this:

• Kernal is a very good poster and would make a good mod imo if another one was needed. I dont think another mod is needed though.

• The idea of me "siding" with the skeptics is very funny to me and should be to anyone who's familiar with my posts in the Paranormal Forum and my interactions ith skeptics there

• SKG, I have no issue with you raising this thread and get where you are coming from. Please dont think that threads like this will draw any negative attention to you from the mods of the forum.

With regards to lengths of bans, as its been pointed out bans get longer the more you get in a forum. 1 week ban -> 1 mouth ban -> 6 month ban -> Perma ban. If it takes someone longer than that to learn the rules then they really shouldnt be allowed on the internet.

Sofa_King Good

Fair play for responding, and I have no doubt Mysterious could be a pain in the arse to keep the reigns on.

And apologies if it came across as a hatchet job, I was trying to stick to the facts and never have had a problem with you personallyl, and have no doubt that yourself and Bonkey work in the interests of the forum and its users , and I don't expect perfection either.

The reason I suggest a 3rd mod is not because of bias effectively but of personality predisposition. It takes a CT'er to understand a CT'er IMO.
And to have someone on the inside who is of this personality type IMO can only be of benefit to the members and the existing mods, and it'd also help with all those posts the existing mods can't read;).

The initial motivation came from seeing this thread by Mysterious posted quite soon after his banning I believe. And tbh I feared for his safety.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055555975

6th

I think one of the problems though is that some folk think that a CT forum should be made up of Pro-CTers only?

Lets say someone believes the moonlanding is fake, out when a thread is published about Obama being the anti-christ they dissagree and start asking questions and looking for evidence? Does someone have to believe in all CTs or none?

Sofa_King Good

Overheal wrote: »

Probably for the same reason Atheists and Christians very often cross-post into the other's respective forum. Theological - or in this case - Ideological debate.

But that is simply not the case here. I sincerely doubt that any CT'er has ever posted in the Skeptic's forum.

I also sincerely doubt that even many of the skeptics have actually posted in the Skeptics forum.

It is a common misconception that all CT'ers all share the same views on all topics. That is simply not the case, there is plenty of room for ideological debate withing the CT community itself.

That is not to say it is impossible for skeptics to make a positive contribution, (and if any are reading this -- I am meaning some and not all). However, currently IMO their collective presence is stifling to the actual debate as they generate a lot of noise and attention.

Also in regards to the Atheist/Christianity forum can anyone tell me if their are posters from either viewpoint that post exclusively in the forum which goes against their beliefs solely to raise counter-arguments?

Also worth pointing out that the Christianity Charter is a Charter that puts its apparent members first.

Overheal wrote: »

There was nothing wrong with the first 2 comments. You appear the first one to raise any hostility to another poster on the thread, here. Bear in mind the posts you find offensive to the OP was in fact thanked by the OP. Big difference between cracking a toothpaste joke and trying to - in effect - tell another poster to shove off.

Personally I think its about growing a thicker skin or wearing a shinier hat tbh. If every chrisitian poster threw his toys out the pram every time an Atheist argued we have no proof of Pink Unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters - well, the forums in question wouldn't function. Theres nothing offensive or disrespectful about pointing out Pink Unicorns can't be proven. Because they can't.

This is an example of the varying dispositions I mentioned, between you and I. I do appreciate that you seem to have taken the time to read over some of the threads though.

6th

SKG, report posts please. Its a heavey traffic forum and it can be difficult to read every post though I do attempted to.

Sofa_King Good

6th wrote: »

I think one of the problems though is that some folk think that a CT forum should be made up of Pro-CTers only?

Lets say someone believes the moonlanding is fake, out when a thread is published about Obama being the anti-christ they dissagree and start asking questions and looking for evidence? Does someone have to believe in all CTs or none?

Well I belive in some, I am not sure even to what an extent I actually believe them myself. I have no idea who shot JFK for example.

IMO 6th CTer exclusive would be not the way to go. All men created equal and all that.

However, the attitude of prove it now or stfu is counter-productive to discussion for me.

Opinions are disregarded outright when they should be the foundation for interesting discussion, especially diferring ones.

The problem here is that

a) you have a CT forum, so naturally people will post CT*S due to the name.

b) Insert militant skeptic with an obsessive hatred of all things illogical and scientifically proven. With demands of evidence and proof

c) Obviously a) has yet to be proven. No proof exists. Varying degrees of circumstansial evidence may exist. Not good enough however.

d) Skeptic never puts forward an opinion, just a counter-opinion.

d) Thread goes either 1 of 2 ways -- 1. Contempt breeds contempt and there is to and fro which ultimately goes nowhere or 2. thread peters out following derailment. Trying to always prove someone wrong does not make for good debate.

Process is repeated over and over.

A skeptic as we have here could freely post their views in most other areas free from ridicule, a CTer cannot even do so in the CT forum. This has a lot to do with the quality of the idea I am sure but nonetheless...

What I would would ask for if the 3rd mod is off the cards is perhaps then if there could be some token gesture made in the charter made towards the CT members.

Sofa_King Good

King Mob wrote: »

Maybe because they're interested in the subject but didn't reach the same conclusions you did?

Fair enough. I respect your right to post, and your knowledge, and generally your humble, understated style.

But I've gotta ask what "subject" is it that you mean?

GhostInTheRuins

SKG, I can see where you're coming from on this.

Athough I'll admit I sometimes do it myself, the level of questioning and nitpicking that goes on sometimes makes me fell sorry the 'pro-ct' posters. But really, another mod shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.

orestes

This is my last reply in this thread, after this I'm not even opening it again (apart from to check if Beruthial really called me delightful, that can't be right) as I feel that repeating the same points that have been made by various people over and over again is fruitless, but what the hell I figure it's worth one last try.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

It takes a CT'er to understand a CT'er IMO. And to have someone on the inside who is of this personality type IMO can only be of benefit to the members and the existing mods, and it'd also help with all those posts the existing mods can't read;).

The personality type of any mod/poster/user is irrelevant regarding modding. The standpoint put forward in any post is irrelevant regarding modding, provided it stays within the charter and the sitewide rules of boards.ie. This is a discussion site, and CT is a discussion forum. People are fully entitled to argue their position, and if that happens to be a stand-point that disagrees with that of another poster, so be it. Discussion and debate are back and forth processes, one side giving their opinions and agreeing with each other is a circle-jerk, and not what this site is for (there are other sites on the internet for that kind of thing)

If you feel a specific post requires the particular attention of a mod, report it.

I really don't see what part of this is so difficult to grasp.

There is no "inside". You seem to be suggesting that the appointment of moderators to the conspiracy theories forum is some kind of conspiracy, which is either a notion so complex that someone should write a dissertation on it or so simple that it should be written in crayon.

Overheal

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

SKG, I can see where you're coming from on this.

Athough I'll admit I sometimes do it myself, the level of questioning and nitpicking that goes on sometimes makes me fell sorry the 'pro-ct' posters. But really, another mod shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.

A Charter addition might be handy. Making blatant ridicule of another poster's beliefs might fall under unhelpful and off-topic, to a degree. I mean, theres tongue-in-cheek, and then theres doing the Bill O'Reilly.

There is no "inside". You seem to be suggesting that the appointment of moderators to the conspiracy theories forum is some kind of conspiracy, which is either a notion so complex that someone should write a dissertation on it or so simple that it should be written in crayon.

I'd sign up for that actually I'm convinced you have to buy a mod a beer to get a referral.

King Mob

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Fair enough. I respect your right to post, and your knowledge, and generally your humble, understated style.

But I've gotta ask what "subject" is it that you mean?

Well to sum it up in a word: extraordinary claims.

Personally I am interested in many conspiracy theories and enjoy researching them. However I have always found them lacking in any solid evidence.

6th

Ah now king Mob, dont think yourself innocent either. Look at how someone like bonkey questions claims, he does it without sarcasm or smilies - aside from being a mod of the forum he's one of the best posters on there and very respectful.

humanji

Overheal wrote: »

A Charter addition might be handy. Making blatant ridicule of another poster's beliefs might fall under unhelpful and off-topic, to a degree. I mean, theres tongue-in-cheek, and then theres doing the Bill O'Reilly.

Would it make sense to just highlight this one section of the charter:

CT Forum Charter wrote:

• Claims, Evidence, Proof
If you are stating something as fact please post your sources or any relevant links/info. Doing so will strengthen your point. Where someone states something as their opinion it is just that, an opinion. Asking "why" they believe something if fine, demanding proof/evidence is not.

to emphasis that you can't demand proof unless someone declares something as fact? I think that's one of the main points of contention on the forum. If this was upheld quite strictly at first, and users reported posts that go against it, then people will eventually get the point.

Or what about, (and I assume this won't be too popular an idea) when a thread is getting too heated and if a mod is there to see it, it gets closed for a few hours or a maybe day to let people cool off. I mean, if people are acting like children, then treat them like children and take away their toys, so to speak. I know it'll stiffel debate, but hopefully that will only be for a little while until people start to get used to the rules and start to relax more when posting.

It's just an idea, and not a very good one, but it's 10:30 in the morning, so it's the best I can do.

Overheal

Its not that their demanding proof though is it? Its that theyre ripping the piss out of other posters and their beliefs.

humanji

Well the people who are ripping the piss are quickly put in their place and/or banned.

The problem that skeptics have is that too many CT'ers claim what they believe is fact. And the problem that CT'ers have is that skeptics only seem to want to pick wholes in their theories. And also, too many people are completely unwilling to admit to being wrong, on both sides.

If a CT'er says they have a theory and that it's ONLY a theory then skeptics should learn to discuss it in a none confrontational way. This is the way the forum should work. Both sides should take a look at the theory and discuss the pro's and con's, not scream at each other that they're right and everyone else is wrong. They should all take a step back and think of the problem from all sides, not just the one they believe.

There will always be people popping in to make fun of CT'ers and there will always be people popping in to make a wild random claim that they state as fact. Everyone else should ignore them, act a little more friendly to each other and have some fun on the forum.

AckwelFoley

6th's epicness must not be questioned.

That is all.

LuckyLloyd

The idea that pro CT'ers (or wackos as most people would call them) should get a free pass once they write "in my opinion" somewhere within their post is weak. It is a public board and some of the 'theories' that get posted there are beyond the ridiculous. It should be incumbent upon the purveyors of such ideas to stand up for themselves and debate and argue against the doubters. If ye are truly convinced and confident in the conclusions your supposed research has led you to, then you need to have the backbone to explain your position and try to convert the 'skeptics'.

Rather than viewing the presence of 'skeptics' and the consequent testing of your theories as some manner of intolerable burden, you should relish the opportunity to distribute your ideas to as wide a spectrum as possible - and the possibility that you can show them the 'light'. I post and moderate the boards.ie soccer forum because I hate team specific wankfests elsewhere on the internet. It is good for your views and positions to be challenged. Robust and substantive discussion benefits all who engage in it honestly.

If you want to exclusively look at things from one side of the coin only, then start a private members group as suggested up thread, or go to some other post board with a different ethos.

Ludo

As someone with an interest in the whole conspiracy theory area, I drop in every so often to read the forum. Every time I do it I get fed up pretty quickly and never bother posting or getting involved simply because there is always a few annoying posters who are only there to ask "where is your proof?".
Last time I went there a few weeks ago, I read 5 or 6 threads and the same poster was in them all asking for proof of this and that in a not particularly nice tone. Yet again I just went off to another forum. Why bother putting up with that kind of "debate"?

Discussion is fine but some people seem to be just there to debunk every topic...why bother? If people are just contributing solely in a negative way, they have no place in a forum IMHO. It comes pretty close to trolling and would be considered trolling in many many other forums here.

Overheal

Yeah I was pretty bummed earlier when I had to fall back on my Space Plow Theory.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055558980

But I mean its the lads right to be skeptical. I still like thinking aliens did it.

phantom_lord

at first i thought the idea of a ct forum was pretty silly, then i realized that really it was just a place where all the crazies could be swept aside and kept hidden away so as not annoy everyone. occasionally they escape into the more normal forums, e.g. runtothehills and all those "omg internet pokerz is rigged " guys, but overall i think the forum does the job well.

strewelpeter

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

There is no point in reporting anything that is plain to see.

On the subject of this:

"On medical questions MY OWN opinion is
I WILL NEVER EVER TAKE A VACCINE "

Some of the replies were

-

-

Two of the most disgusting comments I have ever seen posted on a message board. And for what? For a guy posting a CT in a CT forum.

Admittedly they were "infracted".

But weigh up wishing death and sterilisation on someone and infracted vs calling someone "closed minded" and a 6 month ban. There is no consistency there.

If someone is going to promulgate nonsensical well and truly debunked fantasies about vaccines that are dangerous to public health then it is a valid and rational opinion to wish that such people do not procreate.

Hiding discussions away so that dangerously wrong opinions like those deluded vaccine ravings are safe from comment by rational people is not sane.
Doesn't matter where they post that kind of nonsense it must be open to challenge.

6th

Lads taking cheap shots at the members of the forum here is childish. If you dont like the forum then dont go there. If you do go there then follow the charter.

Even if I dont believe in a particular Ct I can enjoy discussing it and looking at both sides - it helps me to think outside the box and stops my brain from going stale. Some people arent capable of even concidering a CT because they have no imagination.

I'd like to get the Cters and the skeptics to have a debate but to swap sides and genuinely try to put arguements together. Most folk dont know enough about the subject to be able to do that though or as so blind/stuck in the views that it would be impossible for them.

There loads of areas other than CT that I'd like to see that done.

CHD

6th

Velostat > Tinfoil.

Icarus152

Ludo wrote: »

As someone with an interest in the whole conspiracy theory area, I drop in every so often to read the forum. Every time I do it I get fed up pretty quickly and never bother posting or getting involved simply because there is always a few annoying posters who are only there to ask "where is your proof?".
Last time I went there a few weeks ago, I read 5 or 6 threads and the same poster was in them all asking for proof of this and that in a not particularly nice tone. Yet again I just went off to another forum. Why bother putting up with that kind of "debate"?

Discussion is fine but some people seem to be just there to debunk every topic...why bother? If people are just contributing solely in a negative way, they have no place in a forum IMHO. It comes pretty close to trolling and would be considered trolling in many many other forums here.

Quite right,people who do not agree with us should not poast on boards.They are retaarded IMO.

GhostInTheRuins

6th wrote: »

I'd like to get the Cters and the skeptics to have a debate but to swap sides and genuinely try to put arguements together. Most folk dont know enough about the subject to be able to do that though or as so blind/stuck in the views that it would be impossible for them.

Heh, that would be interesting. Can't see it working too well though.