Make the CT forum Members only

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Yes there is.
1) by simply stating it's speculative and that you don't actually hold the theory as fact. You still might have people curious about why you hold such a thing to be plausible, but that's part of discussion.
2) By availing of the part of the charter that allows you to exclude undesirable viewpoints from the thread, within reason.

But if you are unwilling to discuss why you believe something (ie provide the evidence you used to reach your conclusion) then there's very few if any lines of discussion left open.

1. I've provided more links than anyone in that forum. I have no problem supporting a position or having to support a position.
2. This is with 99% of the time considering these same positions speculative or even sometimes improbable..

This is an example of why the name of the forum needs to be changed IMO from conspiracy theories. Like url said, if for example I am going to post a "theory" on Climate Change being a fraud and I am going to support my hypothesis with data and evidence etc and it will be put under the scrutiny of in one of the science forums then it should be in one of the science forums.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1. I've provided more links than anyone in that forum. I have no problem supporting a position or having to support a position.
2. This is with 99% of the time considering these same positions speculative or even sometimes improbable..

This is an example of why the name of the forum needs to be changed IMO from conspiracy theories. Like url said, if for example I am going to post a "theory" on Climate Change being a fraud and I am going to support my hypothesis with data and evidence etc and it will be put under the scrutiny of in one of the science forums then it should be in one of the science forums.

Except that as usual you are undermined by you own posts:
Here's a sample of your last few threads, none of which indicate that they are speculative.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056385146
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056567579

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is not for discussing the existence of such propaganda as it's existence will be self-evident by the examples we are discussing.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056591272
And when I suggested a speculation other than you conclusion in this one:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why is it so hard for you to accept when it is staring you in the face?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056616409
So why do you post these things if you don't actually hold them to be true enough to last in the proper politics forums?
Why then you talk down to people who then don't believe that the things you are posting are true when apparently you now say you don't think they stand up to scrutiny?

However if we actually look at a thread were the person clearly stated that he was speculating, there's no issue.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056509594

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Except that as usual you are undermined by you own posts:
Here's a sample of your last few threads, none of which indicate that they are speculative.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056385146

ey? This is a direct quote from me on that thread:

The way I see it is that there are 4 possible scenarios here:

1. He is telling the truth and is giving an accurate description of events he's witnessed.
2. He's lying.
3. He is not lying but is mistaken.
4. He's gone a bit mental. Possibly due to the ordeal he's been through.

Actually, this thread is an example of the problems I am trying to raise.

> I open a thread based on an interview for the purposes of discussion (post 1)
> I do not nail my flag to the mast on my thoughts on the matter
> Everyone assumes I 100% back the "conspiracy". Nobody even asks.
> By post 11 I have to clarify - "It may or may not have happened. "
> By post 16 people are already having a go at "conspiracy theorists" and again in post 21
> The following post, post 22 despite already stating that "I don't know what happened" I am forced to defend my position as if I do know what happened. Also, I am personally insulted in this post.
> I am forced to reiterate the fact that I don't know what happened in post 29
> Even then I am still forced to defend my postion as if I am putting forward my theory, even though I just shared an interview. Post 41, for example.

You'll forgive me for not addressing all your links as that took some time and what you see above - personal insults, sweeping generalisations made against "conspiracy theorists", off-topic posts regarding sources etc - is a pattern that you'll see across the board in the forum.

Monty Burnz

There's a certain irony in the way this thread is going the same way that most threads on the CT board go.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

ey? This is a direct quote from me on that thread:

Which came 28 posts into the thread.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Actually, this thread is an example of the problems I am trying to raise.

Except the actual point you were just trying to make.

You'll have to explain how

This is not for discussing the existence of such propaganda as it's existence will be self-evident by the examples we are discussing.

Counts as speculative.

Your other points about about the insults are 1) covered by the charter and 2) undermined by the generalisations and sweeping comments made by the OP of this thread which is much worse than any of the ones you pointed to, yet have remained silent about.

Tzar Chasm

does this happen every time the CT Forum is discussed?

on the one hand I can see why some of the longer term posters might take the position that they want their own private area to discuss things, however I would see that as being the complete opposite of what I believe a CT Forum to be about namely bringing conspiracies to teh attention of a wider audience

can long term members petition to have some of the more persistent aggitators banned from the forum, or if banning is considered a step too is premoderation an option on Boards? but then I suppose thats a whole new quagmire as who decides which posters are to be banned.

jaysus my head might explode just thinkin about it, Fair play to the mods for taking on this sort of work, I think I might just stick to the Classic cars forum for a while

Sarky

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There's a certain irony in the way this thread is going the same way that most threads on the CT board go.

You're not suggesting someone planned it to go that way, are you? >_>

superluck

Monty Burnz wrote:

There's a certain irony in the way this thread is going the same way that most threads on the CT board go.

I won't be posting on there anymore when my 2 week ban is up.
Not really interested in discussing anything there any more.

Penn

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

does this happen every time the CT Forum is discussed?

on the one hand I can see why some of the longer term posters might take the position that they want their own private area to discuss things, however I would see that as being the complete opposite of what I believe a CT Forum to be about namely bringing conspiracies to teh attention of a wider audience

can long term members petition to have some of the more persistent aggitators banned from the forum, or if banning is considered a step too is premoderation an option on Boards? but then I suppose thats a whole new quagmire as who decides which posters are to be banned.

jaysus my head might explode just thinkin about it, Fair play to the mods for taking on this sort of work, I think I might just stick to the Classic cars forum for a while

Just to highlight, some of the "longer term posters" are skeptics/debunkers, so they'd be equally as entitled to join any new sub-forum or private forum, which means the battle between both sides would spill over into there too.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

Just to highlight, some of the "longer term posters" are skeptics/debunkers, so they'd be equally as entitled to join any new sub-forum or private forum, which means the battle between both sides would spill over into there too.

Not if the rules of engagement were such that badgering for evidence was frowned upon. That's actually what it's like to be a CT poster opening a thread there, you feel like your on the stand being interrogated by a defense lawyer who will cross-examine you on every minute detail.

Think about it, why is only one "side" eternally happy with the status quo and the other can feel disgruntled?

I'm not suggesting that the mods do anything other than a professional job but every mod that I've ever seen of the forum, including you has been from the "other" side, the side that defends the status quo.

Perhaps a step in the right direction could be representation from the "other side" (I don't mean dead people and I definitely don't mean myself). In the way that supporters have a seat in the boardroom at some football clubs or a Union rep or whatever.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not if the rules of engagement were such that badgering for evidence was frowned upon. That's actually what it's like to be a CT poster opening a thread there, you feel like your on the stand being interrogated by a defense lawyer who will cross-examine you on every minute detail.

Think about it, why is only one "side" eternally happy with the status quo and the other can feel disgruntled?

I'm not suggesting that the mods do anything other than a professional job but every mod that I've ever seen of the forum, including you has been from the "other" side, the side that defends the status quo.

Perhaps a step in the right direction could be representation from the "other side" (I don't mean dead people and I definitely don't mean myself). In the way that supporters have a seat in the boardroom at some football clubs or a Union rep or whatever.

Firstly, as has already been explained in this this thread and pointed out from the charter, it's a forum rule that if you claim that something is true, you should be able to back it up. I'm not saying every detail should be disputed, but the important ones should. If someone provides a link and someone else can disprove that link, then they should, because otherwise the whole theory is based on a falsehood.

Secondly, with regards the 'status quo', it's not the rules that need changing, it's the posters. Like you say, I modded the forum myself, and the majority of what I witnessed was both sides being needlessly aggressive right from the get-go of most threads. Whether it was skeptics demanding proof or evidence, or a skeptic pointing out flaws in a theory and being insulted by theorists, the problem comes from both sides.

With regards all the mods being from "the other side", unless you can prove that somehow made them biased, then your point is moot. This has been discussed before both here and on the CT forum; Mods cannot be chosen based on what side of the fence they're on. Mods should always be impartial when it comes to making modding decisions, so what side of the fence any and all past mods have been on, is a moot point, and if you feel a mod has not been impartial in a decision, there are ways to go above their head.

When it comes to choosing new mods, it's always best to go for the posters who cause the least trouble, are respectful to other posters, know the forum pretty well, can make impartial decisions, and bearing in mind all potential mods have to be approved by CMods and Admin which means their posting history (bans/infractions etc) have to be taken into account. What side of the fence they're on doesn't matter. It just turns out that most of (if not all, though I can't really remember) the posters who have met those criteria have been skeptics/debunkers. And failing that, there have been external mods such as The Recliner and Micky Dolenz who don't post regularly in CT who have been brought in as an impartial mod.

Brown Bomber

Your missing the point. All things being equal then you should have equal patterns of postivity/negativity from each side. This is clearly not the case.

The second point is that to avoid groupthink, which I am sure you would at least agree that this would be desirable, you should at least have a single voice from the outgroup within the policy making decisions of the ingroup.

Alas, we are pissing into the wind here though. We are wasting both our times on a discussion that'll go nowhere.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your missing the point. All things being equal then you should have equal patterns of postivity/negativity from each side. This is clearly not the case.

The second point is that to avoid groupthink, which I am sure you would at least agree that this would be desirable, you should at least have a single voice from the outgroup within the policy making decisions of the ingroup.

Alas, we are pissing into the wind here though. We are wasting both our times on a discussion that'll go nowhere.

We're pissing into the wind because frankly, you're wrong. You're suggesting making someone a mod because they are biased to one side, whereas the point should be to make someone a mod because they won't be biased to one side. If someone is made a mod, they have to deal with reported posts and threads from both sides. Their own opinion does not and cannot factor into their decisions. And when it comes to making policy changes to the forum, that's what things like the Feedback & Proposals thread is for, where posters can make suggestions regardless of what side of the fence they're on.

Sarky

Run_to_da_hills for new mod. He has his head screwed on, that boy.

Morag

Newton's theory of gravitation

theory

:pac:

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your missing the point. All things being equal then you should have equal patterns of postivity/negativity from each side. This is clearly not the case.

I'm not sure about this, if you are referring to the positivity/negativity with which each proposed theory is received - bear in mind that many (most?) of the theories presented are quite 'out there', requiring a rather unusual interpretation of history and perception of the world around us.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not sure about this, if you are referring to the positivity/negativity with which each proposed theory is received - bear in mind that many (most?) of the theories presented are quite 'out there', requiring a rather unusual interpretation of history and perception of the world around us.

oh sorry, what I meant is that all things being equal and with the presence of two "sides" then both sides should be equally satisfied/dissatisfied at regular rates and intervals.

Tzar Chasm

Penn wrote: »

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

does this happen every time the CT Forum is discussed?

on the one hand I can see why some of the longer term posters might take the position that they want their own private area to discuss things, however I would see that as being the complete opposite of what I believe a CT Forum to be about namely bringing conspiracies to teh attention of a wider audience

can long term members petition to have some of the more persistent aggitators banned from the forum, or if banning is considered a step too is premoderation an option on Boards? but then I suppose thats a whole new quagmire as who decides which posters are to be banned.

jaysus my head might explode just thinkin about it, Fair play to the mods for taking on this sort of work, I think I might just stick to the Classic cars forum for a while

Just to highlight, some of the "longer term posters" are skeptics/debunkers, so they'd be equally as entitled to join any new sub-forum or private forum, which means the battle between both sides would spill over into there too.

Could these battles be contained by this subforum though???
Leaving the main forum free for the rest of us to engage in civil debate

Brown Bomber

Sarky wrote: »

Run_to_da_hills for new mod. He has his head screwed on, that boy.

I can't see why not. He has to put up with a tremendous amount of abuse and rarely responds in kind.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

We're pissing into the wind because frankly, you're wrong. You're suggesting making someone a mod because they are biased to one side, whereas the point should be to make someone a mod because they won't be biased to one side. If someone is made a mod, they have to deal with reported posts and threads from both sides. Their own opinion does not and cannot factor into their decisions. And when it comes to making policy changes to the forum, that's what things like the Feedback & Proposals thread is for, where posters can make suggestions regardless of what side of the fence they're on.

No. You are missing the point again. I am not suggesting anyone should be biased, I am saying that everyone is somewhat biased despite their best efforts. You have already accepted the existence of groups within the forum. Only one group is represented amongst the policy makers i.e. the mods albeit they most moderate members. My suggestion is not to employ a "biased" mod but an unbiased mod from the outgroup to counteract groupthink and enable more balanced policy discussions amongst mods of that forum. I mean, it's not asking for blood.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. You are missing the point again. I am not suggesting anyone should be biased, I am saying that everyone is somewhat biased despite their best efforts. You have already accepted the existence of groups within the forum. Only one group is represented amongst the policy makers i.e. the mods albeit they most moderate members. My suggestion is not to employ a "biased" mod but an unbiased mod from the outgroup to counteract groupthink and enable more balanced policy discussions amongst mods of that forum. I mean, it's not asking for blood.

But again, you're suggesting a mod should be chosen based on their own personal opinions and what side of the fence they're on, and you're suggesting that the current mods aren't capable of making balanced policy decisions due to their own personal opinions.

Let's say that a theorist was made mod as you suggest. A policy discussion arises and the mods vote on it, and the decision goes 3-1 against what the theorist mod wants. What then? Should there be two theorist mods and two skeptic mods? 3 theorist mods and one skeptic mod? Or should mods be chosen because they can be trusted not to make these decisions impartially? Matters of policy for the forum don't usually involve whether or not you believe in CTs or not. Hell, it'd make the lives far easier on the mods to ban all skeptics and just have it be a forum for theorists. But a) that would be silencing one side of the debate and unfair to those who want to discuss things from the opposing viewpoint, and b) f*cking boring.

I took part in helping to choose the replacement mods for when I left. What side of the fence they were on did not factor into it (In fact, when suggesting RoboClam I couldn't even remember if he was a theorist or skeptic). Mods should only ever be chosen, regardless of what the forum is, if they can be trusted to be impartial.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

But again, you're suggesting a mod should be chosen based on their own personal opinions and what side of the fence they're on, and you're suggesting that the current mods aren't capable of making balanced policy decisions due to their own personal opinions.

No. I said "more balanced". I have full confidence in the mods of the forum to be balanced on a best effort basis. My point is that they are human and therefore flawed. You accept that the forum is a hostile environment with highly polarised sides. Mods from only one side of the the divide are given representation and despite their very best and most honest efforts to accomodate the collective they can't in any real way understand the frustrations and difficulties of being on the other. An unbiased mod from the other side redresses this through their own experiences.

Penn wrote: »

Let's say that a theorist was made mod as you suggest. A policy discussion arises and the mods vote on it, and the decision goes 3-1 against what the theorist mod wants.

Then the policy is passed. That is not the issue. The benefit is that there is a voice in opposition being heard before the vote which potentially could make the other 3 see things from a new perspective, a perspective that they couldn't have without this voice and lead them to conclude that in fact the policy would be counter-productive for the collective.

Penn wrote: »

Or should mods be chosen because they can be trusted not to make these decisions impartially?

They should also be chosen because they will give a best effort to make decisions impartially. Having both sides represented in the policy making discussions improves the ability to make decisions impartially as it reveals more of the bigger picture.

Penn

I disagree. Believe me, when I joined as mod, I started seeing things from both sides of the debate. I saw the insults directed at theorists and I saw the insults directed at skeptics. When I was a poster, I was regularly insulted by some theorists. When I became a mod, while I was personally still a skeptic, I came to see how hard the theorists get it from some of the other skeptics on the forum. And that's why when choosing mods, it's not about what side of the fence you're on, it's about being able to see both sides of the argument and make a decision based on what's in the best interests of the forum itself.

I think we're straying too far from the real issue here. The issue isn't the mods, it's the posters. Both sides are needlessly aggressive and antagonistic. I think everyone needs to take the forum less seriously and discuss things civilly. Making the forum private or having a sub-forum won't fix the actual problem. If both sides treated the other side with respect, some great discussions and debates could take place, as has done in the past, which would be to the benefit of everyone who uses the forum, could bring back some older posters who've left, and could attract new posters.

LoLth

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. I said "more balanced". I have full confidence in the mods of the forum to be balanced on a best effort basis. My point is that they are human and therefore flawed. You accept that the forum is a hostile environment with highly polarised sides. Mods from only one side of the the divide are given representation and despite their very best and most honest efforts to accomodate the collective they can't in any real way understand the frustrations and difficulties of being on the other. An unbiased mod from the other side redresses this through their own experiences.

you are asking us to approve a mod based on a criterium other than their past behaviour / participation on boards. thats never going to happen if for no other reason than "congratulations, you're now a mod, not because you are the best person for the job but solely because you support X/are Y gender/have Z level of education (delete as appropriate). Good luck with gaining your co-mod's and the users' respect and not having your decisions questioned at every turn or having your beliefs used to "prove" bias against a user"...

We try to approve mods that we feel will be impartial. Its either that or we try writing a script to do it and take away any notion of contextual allowances or leniency from the mods. Is the current system perfect? I highly doubt it but its the one we have and its working in almost every other forum, even the contentious ones. Perhaps the difference is in the users and not the way the mods are appointed?

by the way, what exactly is "an unbiased mod from teh other side" how can they be from a side and be unbiased? if they are unbiased on becoming a mod, sure then they arent from one side or the other and so they are neutral, problem solved? (isnt that what we are already attemtping?)

Then the policy is passed. That is not the issue. The benefit is that there is a voice in opposition being heard before the vote which potentially could make the other 3 see things from a new perspective, a perspective that they couldn't have without this voice and lead them to conclude that in fact the policy would be counter-productive for the collective.

mods discuss decisions. The mods are approved based on their ability to make difficult decisions usually by examining a problem from more than one angle. Its one of the benefits of having more than one mod per forum. Again, you are requesting something that involves skewign the mod selection process that seems to work almost everywhere else. My counter-suggestion would be, evidence shows that its not the issue and that you should look for the root cause elsewhere.

They should also be chosen because they will give a best effort to make decisions impartially. Having both sides represented in the policy making discussions improves the ability to make decisions impartially as it reveals more of the bigger picture.

Either we deliberately choose mods who are diametrically opposed in their beliefs and equally staunch in those beliefs OR we choose mods who can set aside their beliefs and view an issue with impartiality. Your suggestion sounds almost counter-productive as mods would spend more time arguing amonst themselves over whether post X was or was not a dig at belief Y and if so , how serious and what action is required than they would actually workign together to find a solution that is best for the forum as a whole rather than what best accommodates one particular type of user or other.

I'm not adonishing you here in any way. I just want you to understand why your suggestion, which has been suggested before for other forums by the way, cannot work and has been rejected in the past.

of course, we could have made the CT forum in the first place to gather alll the crazy into one spot so we get better coverage from out subliminal adverts we broadcast every 61 frames. Sometimes we have it set to calm, other times we implant teh suggestion of trench warfare and strawman arguemtns. its been working great on the politics forum for a while now. Once we are satisfied with the data we'll send the /ragequit command


as for a sub-forum for long-term users:

long-term users are from both camps so the issue would continue in teh sub-forum.

New users would have to be from one camp or another or arguments will start in the main forum as well.

You can be guaranteed that, unless users are blocked access to one or the other forum, the argument would spread.

so, no benefit to be had, just an extension of the pain.


alternative?

well, it could be written into the charter than only those that agree with theories can post or that theories cannot be questioned.... but whats the point in that? Surely a theory has to be able to withstand a bit of prodding if its to be considered an actual possibility? how far can such prodding go? at what point do you point at a poster and roar "Skeptiiiiiiiiiic!", when the OP can not provide an answer? if any tone other than pleasant can be read into the wording of a post?

Zero tolerance on skepticism perhaps?
Then its not a discussion forum, its a notice board for anything people want to assert without proof.

In any situation where a posters beliefs are being attacked, and they are attacked because not all beliefs can be true so there will always be someone that feels their beliefs are suffering, tempers are likely to flare. Perhaps more time needs to be spent educating users on how to effectively debate and discuss without personal investment in an issue?

And no, even though it seems like I believe that its all the users' fault, I'm not saying that. We do see less trouble in other belief based forums, thats true. And we also see more in others. I'm just wondering where this thread is going and hoping this post will help set one or two unworkable suggestions to rest so maybe something that is feasible will pop up from the remnants.

DB21

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I can't see why not. He has to put up with a tremendous amount of abuse and rarely responds in kind.

Primarily because he puts anyone who questions him on ignore.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

I disagree. .

I don't quite understand how you can disagree with the idea in theory that in a highly-polarised environment representation of all sides amongst policy makers is preferable.

Penn wrote: »

Believe me, when I joined as mod, I started seeing things from both sides of the debate.

The point is that you can't possibly see both sides as you haven't been on both sides. It's like me saying as a white man I know what it's like to be the victim of anti-black racism because I lived in apartheid South Africa and saw it on a daily basis.

Penn wrote: »

And that's why when choosing mods, it's not about what side of the fence you're on, it's about being able to see both sides of the argument and make a decision based on what's in the best interests of the forum itself.

I agree. I see the mods as a unit or a team. My point is that this team would be enhanced by having a voice that has the experience of being on the "other side". That can offer alternative viewpoints or suggestions privately based on this unique experiences that none of the others can offer.

I can't think of a single way in which this same team would be weakened by such an addition.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I can't think of a single way in which this same team would be weakened by such an addition.

Because they're being made mod not because they're the best person for the job, but because they are slightly biased in one direction. Modding involves a lot more than a vote in deciding policy changes

gibraltar

superluck wrote: »

Is Darwins theory true or false? ...we don't know, it's just a theory.

superluck wrote: »

Darwin had a theory of evolution but we don't ask those who believe in it to provide evidence it's true because we understand it's just a theory..nothing more, it doesn't require evidence.

If you honestly believe something as fundamentally wrong as the above then I think you should stop looking into conspiracy theories and have a look at the theory of evolution.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

Because they're being made mod not because they're the best person for the job, but because they are slightly biased in one direction. Modding involves a lot more than a vote in deciding policy changes

And who decided who is the "best person for the job"? The same incrowd and so the cycle continues...

What disqualifies the outgroup as being "the best person for the job"? Their history of discretions, which according to the OP is due to the prevelance of antagonism and provocation which is enabled by the policies decided by the ingroup and so the cycle continues...

LoLth

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And who decided who is the "best person for the job"?

The Admins

The same incrowd and so the cycle continues...

What disqualifies the outgroup as being "the best person for the job"? Their history of discretions,

not just in the CT forum but taken from the site as a whole and not just their history of indiscretions, personal experience, if any, from an admin POV can be quite important as well as how that individual has handled criticism / conflict in the past.

which according to the OP is due to the prevelance of antagonism and provocation which is enabled by the policies decided by the ingroup and so the cycle continues...

there is still a basic set of policies that even the mods have to enforce, the boards.ie charter. trust me, the admins take a much dimmer view of a boards.ie policy being transgressed than we do a forum policy (both are taken into account though). Its understood that passion for a subject can result an infraction but repeated infractions / bans is more than just passion, its an inability to express that idea within the limits of the system at hand. If a user cant obey the existing rules , what makes you think they deserve the opportunity to formulate rules for others to abide by? Would it not be hypocritical of them to punish another user for doing exactly what they did themselves when they were a user of that forum?

in any case,

selection of a mod based on their beliefs/gender/tenets/nationality is not going to happen