A 3rd Pro-CT Mod For CT Forum

bonkey

When I get a mail notifying me of a reported post in CT, I can usually figure out the stance of the poster who has been reported by knowing the stance of who reported it.

Put more simply, its a rare, rare event when a "pro CT" poster reports another "pro CT" poster, or when an "anti CT" poster reports another "anti CT" poster.

At the same time, I would say that the Feedback we get as mods is either to say that we're doing ok, or that we're too lenient on "the other side"...mostly its the latter. Feedback from the "pro CT" posters is (mostly) that we're too lenient on the "anti CT" posters, and the "anti CT" posters think were too lenient on the "pro CT" posters.

I'm not using this as an excuse to dismiss suggestions that there is a lack of balance. I fully accept that there may be a lack of balance. If there is, then I accept that its highly probable that I don't see it. I'm just skeptical (amn't I always!) as to whether or not anyone who's a frequent poster on the forum is any better positioned to see it...especially bearing in mind the points I've made above.

If there is even the suggestion of a lack of balance, I would suggest that its something which needs to be considered as neutrally as possible. This is what Helpdesk is for. If anyone (indivudally or collectively) believes there is an issue that needs addressing, the issue whould be taken to Helpdesk. If the decision is that there is something to address, then we should discuss solutions.

Maybe the Helpdesk mods will say I'm wrong on this, but I don't see a problem where multiple interested parties can be allowed have their say. Having to explicitly be given permission to partake in the discussion should seriously cut down on the side-commentaries that we're seeing here (which we can do without).

Adding a "pro CT" mod is, one suggestion for a possible solution to a potential problem that none of us are really neutral enough to make a decision on. I can think of other solutions, up to and including a complete "changing of the guard". I think we're jumping the gun by even having this discussion.

Sofa_King Good

King Mob wrote: »

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

From Irish Skeptics
"Promoting Science, Critical Thinking and the Questioning of 'extraordinary claims'"
http://www.irishskeptics.net/

If you click on "forum" at the top it actually links you to the Skeptics forum on boards!
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=422

Sofa_King Good

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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.

Looking past the tone here I have to apologise if I have not made myself clear.

I encourage people to challenge me on my views, I prefer it. But like anything there is a right and a wrong way to go about it. i.e. civily- If people genuinely want to question any point that is fine by me. However, what people don't seem to get is that in the CT forum you probably have the highest number per head (unless there is a mental illness forum?) of posters with mental problems. In the red corner you have extreme narcissim and in the blue corner acute paronia is the condition of choice. CT folk have no issues with Skeptics...They are not the percieved enemy of the "wacko's" & why should they be?

(some) Skeptics on the other hand start to spew venom at the though of a CT or a CT'er as the idea alone goes against everything they ascribe to be true.

The dysfunctional dynamic that has been created is in need of Dr Phil or more probably Supernanny. The key point here is that (most) skeptics don't want to discuss or debate CT's they want to piss all over them IMO.

Sofa_King Good

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

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

ITs easy to be a skeptic in the CT forum - Just follow Saul Allinsky's simple rules.
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html

Sofa_King Good

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.

Thank You, Thank you, Thank You. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier -- People who genuinely want to discuss the topics put off by the needless aggression.

Sofa_King Good

6th wrote: »

Thats a yellow card and a red card in the Ct forum now PL

This too is what I was getting out. Someone (Phantom Lord) comes in rips the piss out of me and the community and then its high-5's all round.

Sofa_King Good

6th wrote: »

Thats a yellow card and a red card in the Ct forum now PL

This too is what I was getting out. Someone (Phantom Lord) comes in rips the piss out of me with this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2055563304 and the community and then its high-5's all round.

Sofa_King Good

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.


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

Done Deal. In the gay bar or the skeptic bar across the road?

Sofa_King Good

bonkey wrote: »

When I get a mail notifying me of a reported post in CT, I can usually figure out the stance of the poster who has been reported by knowing the stance of who reported it.

Put more simply, its a rare, rare event when a "pro CT" poster reports another "pro CT" poster, or when an "anti CT" poster reports another "anti CT" poster.

At the same time, I would say that the Feedback we get as mods is either to say that we're doing ok, or that we're too lenient on "the other side"...mostly its the latter. Feedback from the "pro CT" posters is (mostly) that we're too lenient on the "anti CT" posters, and the "anti CT" posters think were too lenient on the "pro CT" posters.

I'm not using this as an excuse to dismiss suggestions that there is a lack of balance. I fully accept that there may be a lack of balance. If there is, then I accept that its highly probable that I don't see it. I'm just skeptical (amn't I always!) as to whether or not anyone who's a frequent poster on the forum is any better positioned to see it...especially bearing in mind the points I've made above.

If there is even the suggestion of a lack of balance, I would suggest that its something which needs to be considered as neutrally as possible. This is what Helpdesk is for. If anyone (indivudally or collectively) believes there is an issue that needs addressing, the issue whould be taken to Helpdesk. If the decision is that there is something to address, then we should discuss solutions.

Maybe the Helpdesk mods will say I'm wrong on this, but I don't see a problem where multiple interested parties can be allowed have their say. Having to explicitly be given permission to partake in the discussion should seriously cut down on the side-commentaries that we're seeing here (which we can do without).

Adding a "pro CT" mod is, one suggestion for a possible solution to a potential problem that none of us are really neutral enough to make a decision on. I can think of other solutions, up to and including a complete "changing of the guard". I think we're jumping the gun by even having this discussion.

Perhaps I have been hasty is suggesting this, but noone from either side who has posted has denied that there are issues. The **** hits the fan way too often

Maybe, just maybe the rules need to be changed or tweaked at least. I don't wish to be critical here either. The Christianity is marginally more protective of its "flock" than others who wish to stir the pot.

I don't know if it has done before but perhaps a sticky in the forum where everyone has their cards on the table to find a way forward?

humanji

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

This too is what I was getting out. Someone (Phantom Lord) comes in rips the piss out of me with this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2055563304 and the community and then its high-5's all round.

He got a red card and the thread was locked. In a DIFFERENT forum, 6th acknowledged that he knows PL wasn't being serious, but that means nothing as it was in a forum 6th doesn't mod.

humanji

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Perhaps I have been hasty is suggesting this, but noone from either side who has posted has denied that there are issues. The **** hits the fan way too often

Maybe, just maybe the rules need to be changed or tweaked at least. I don't wish to be critical here either. The Christianity is marginally more protective of its "flock" than others who wish to stir the pot.

I don't know if it has done before but perhaps a sticky in the forum where everyone has their cards on the table to find a way forward?

That would be possible if people were willing to accept that they are wrong. Very few, on either side of the debate will accept being wrong because the goal posts are always being moved. There will always be friction, so the only way to deal with it is to report posts when someone goes overboard.

bonkey

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Perhaps I have been hasty is suggesting this, but noone from either side who has posted has denied that there are issues.

That's kind of missing the point I was making.

I agree that there are issues. Both sides - because there are two mainly-polarised sides here - see that there are issues. Each side sees different issues - they see that "the other side" are doing things wrong, but don't seem to apply the same criticism to their own.

Just look back through some of your own comments here. You accuse the skeptics of being this, that and the other, but I haven't seen a single comment from you about conspiracy-believers stepping out of line.

One side is to blame, and its not yours....just as the other side also claim.

The **** hits the fan way too often

IMHO, mostly for two reasons:

1) People are so quick to take offense at receiving what they're more than happy to dish out
2) People are unwilling to criticise "their own".

Maybe, just maybe the rules need to be changed or tweaked at least.

The mods were talking recently - albeit half-seriously - about giving what some people apparently want....a hardline regime, where we slap silly anyone who even gives a hint of stepping out of line....just so that we could watch people complain about how the mods are power-mad and completely out of line. Again, though, I woudl predict that such complaints would be only when it was "their own" who were effected.

But seriously...if you want rules tweaked, then make your case. Just bear in mind that any rule-change which is clearly going to favour one of the polarised sides over the other will not be accepted. If someone wants to make the case that there is favouritism that needs to be corrected, its a discussion for Helpdesk. Tweaks to the rules should be about dealing with generic issues. If you have to argue that one side or the other do this or that and shouldn't be allowed, then its pretty certain that its not really going to go anywhere.

I don't know if it has done before but perhaps a sticky in the forum where everyone has their cards on the table to find a way forward?

You mean like the one that's currently open, entitled "CT Forum: Opinions"?

Diogenes

Just to give some background here. SkG vehemently denies being "Anti Semitic" merely "Anti Zionists".

Yet saw fit to post this thread.

Some choice points.

organized Jewry had tried to cast doubt on Frank's conviction by shifting the blame to a black man even though ritual murder is a known Jewish tradition, the ADL being used thereafter to denounce anti-criminals as "anti-Semites" whenever the criminals happened to be Jews.

It isn't Muslims who have a reputation for perpetrating arson scams in order to claim off insurance companies as evidenced by any colloquial use of the term "Muslim lightning"; it is Jews as evidenced by the recognized term "Jewish lightning".

It wasn't Muslims who practised pseudo-science by refusing to look for Iron Blue at Auschwitz or explosives at the World Trade Center,

It wasn't Muslims who were caught red-handed forging fake "smoke" onto wartime photographs of Auschwitz; it was the Simon Wiesenthal Center, whose suitability as guardians of truth is comparable to a choice of Count Dracula as a maintainer of blood banks.

The article is chock full of hyperlinks to organisations like Stormfront, David Irving and their ilk.

I don't seek to persuade SkG anyone who claims they are "not anti semitic" and feels happy to link to an article that essentially describes a race of people as evil, I see little point in changing the mind of someone so dogmatic that they don't hold a believe while clearly displaying that believe, that would be pointless.

I merely try and point out this racism and dogma so that other users can see the blind hatred that guides this believe.

If I'm a little terse and annoyed, than fine, excuse me, but I feel hard pressed to be polite to someone who casually expresses blind hatred and racism, and then expects their opinion to be respected, as if they should be allowed casually cast assertions at an entire race, as if that isn't insulting.

Or to quote Tom Lehrer "Some people hate their fellow man, and I hate people like that".

orestes

Beruthiel wrote: »

Knock yourself out baby.

That bottle better be forth coming!

A bottle of Blue Nun already has your name on it

Lots and lots of evil bigoted nastiness posted by the OP in the CT forum

Yup, looks like we're done here to me, cat time! \o/









I know this one's not a cat, but it just has to be done

BuffyBot

I don't think catpics are helping. Let's leave them out, thanks

6th

bonkey wrote: »

The mods were talking recently - albeit half-seriously - about giving what some people apparently want....a hardline regime, where we slap silly anyone who even gives a hint of stepping out of line.

Just give the nod bonkey .... DO IT!

RoundyMooney

Are we taking it on ourselves to pass judgement by catpic now?

:rolleyes:

humanji

bonkey wrote: »

The mods were talking recently - albeit half-seriously - about giving what some people apparently want....a hardline regime, where we slap silly anyone who even gives a hint of stepping out of line....just so that we could watch people complain about how the mods are power-mad and completely out of line. Again, though, I woudl predict that such complaints would be only when it was "their own" who were effected.

Maybe that's what should be done? At first people will keep getting into trouble, but after a little while everyone would learn to behave themselves (well maybe they will), and once they do, the reins can be loosened a bit.

LuckyLloyd

Diogenes wrote: »

Just to give some background here. SkG vehemently denies being "Anti Semitic" merely "Anti Zionists".

Yet saw fit to post this thread.

Ahhhhh, I get it now. Looking at that, and some of MC's posting history, it's becoming clear that this "conspiracy theory" nonsense is just a new way of expressing racist bile - a useful cover to protect yourself from being labeled for what you are in today's PC society. Awesome.

Nick_oliveri

That opinion of yours MC and your grudge Diogenes is all very well and good, were it
relevant to the OP. Does this have to come up everytime lads?

MC, i am dissapointed in you tbh, I really feel 6th does his best and comes across as having a very genuine interest in what goes on on the forum. I see no bias either. Your bitterness is misdirected.

Let it be known that I was against that witchunt. Unstoppable force..immovable object.
Let it be.

But this is relevant to NOTHING. And ye roped me in... I hate you guys.

Mahatma coat

OK To resurect this thread a bit
People asked me to demonstrate a bias, well heres an example

Mysterious was punished by the sliding scale of Bannings, one week then a month then 3 months etc

Diogenes has more infractions and Bannings so far than Mysterious, yet he only recieved a one week ban for personal abuse
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60269475&postcount=96

This is the Bias I was tlakin about

either we have a Charter and a set of rules which are applied equally to all

or

its the mods 'own personal fiefdom' where they are free to decide what the punishments should be based on whether or not the Poster is someone they like or dislike, or which side of the debate the Mods own personal bias sides with.




Ignore and mock me as you will, I've come to expect nothing better from a lot of the rabble here, but its a validss point

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK To resurect this thread a bit
People asked me to demonstrate a bias, well heres an example

Mysterious was punished by the sliding scale of Bannings, one week then a month then 3 months etc

Diogenes has more infractions and Bannings so far than Mysterious, yet he only recieved a one week ban for personal abuse
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60269475&postcount=96

This is the Bias I was tlakin about

That sounds like a case for helpdesk.

Mahatma coat

Helpdesk is a pointless exercise in circlejerkery, respond here if you have a valid response

Nerin

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Helpdesk is a pointless exercise in circlejerkery, respond here if you have a valid response

Then this should be locked. If you aren't going to bother going about your complaint in the right way,then why should anybody bother to listen to you.

BuffyBot

Indeed. Lockage.