Something needs to be done about the conspiracy theories forum

nullzero · 21-09-2021 2:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919416#Comment_117919416

The answer there is simple.

Apply the standard template and fill in the fields that aren't applicable as N/A.

I wasn't misrepresenting you, I was dismissing your point as it made no sense. All the issues you've raised in relation to the implementation of a standard template have easy answers. It isn't a personal issue.

sydthebeat · 21-09-2021 2:15pm

A TEMPLATE (In whatever agreed form) is a useful tool when purporting a new CT.

I don't see it as in anyway then restricting a new thread which discusses CTS in general ie "dangers of CTs" etc.

But of someone wants to start a CT about "how Karl schwab has the power to remove your private property" then there should be a standard / set criteria that needs to be met first before this becomes a realistic thread. We absolutely need moderation buy in on this, and the mods decisions needed to be accepted by both sides.

astrofool · 21-09-2021 2:16pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919389#Comment_117919389

I definitely "had" it first as I was here when they added the avatars 😉 It could do with a higher res update, going through platforms has left it's fair share of artifacts:

Xbox engineer fixes user’s profile picture, makes the world a better place - The Verge

nullzero · 21-09-2021 2:17pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919487#Comment_117919487

The whole point of the introduction of a standard template is to remove the chaff from the forum raise the standard of topic being discussed and improve the experience of using the forum for everyone.

Another key to improving the forum would be to change the standard of posting with regard to how people feel they are entitled to speak to one another.

On this thread today I have been accused of Lying, misrepresentation and dodging questions when in reality I haven't done anything of the sort.

Before you know it three or four pages have passed of certain posters making demands and accusations and the point that was made to begin with is so far in the rear view mirror it's invisible. That is another form of chaff that needs to be removed from the CT forum. There's far too much "you say I say" and not enough actual discussion of the topics.

King Mob · 21-09-2021 2:18pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919573#Comment_117919573

No. You misrepresented me. You claimed I held a position I didn't and to support this you took my points out of context.

I don't oppose implementing the idea. I never did.

banie01 · 21-09-2021 2:19pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919587#Comment_117919587

Agree, as I said in my long winded reply to KingMob I think there is ample scope for the OP to be prose or template based but what is IMO imperative.

Is that the theory proposed is lain out, the posters thinking behind it being plausible and that any evidence or inference relied upon to make the theory plausible is included in the OP. Be it templated or prose.

nullzero · 21-09-2021 2:22pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919609#Comment_117919609

I didn't misrepresent you.

You for some reason can't wrap your head around what a standard is and how it works.

There are no exceptions. When you argue for exceptions you are arguing against the implementation of a standard.

Pointing that out is not misrepresentation or taking your points out of context. You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of how a standard works and you have used that lack of insight as a justification for your nose being out of joint.

Well. I'm sorry Kingmob, but you not being able to comprehend a simple concept doesn't give you the right to make accusations of misrepresentation when you are the one misrepresenting the concept.

King Mob · 21-09-2021 2:25pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919587#Comment_117919587

I was just saying that it should be clear that the template isn't required for those posts as no conspiracy is being proposed.

The clarification being there just to make sure that no posts like that would be mistakenly deterred.

I think there could be other types of posts that would also not really fit into the template idea, but I can't think of any off hand.

King Mob · 21-09-2021 2:29pm

Also it might bare clarification: How would this template/standard be implemented?

Would it be the posts get submitted for a mod review? Or does the post go onto the forum and then if it's lacking a mod would warn or delete as necessary?

I was imagining more the latter.

Mic 1972 · 21-09-2021 2:33pm

Another thread completely lost after the usual posters. Working around them become the subject matter of the actual thread

banie01 · 21-09-2021 2:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919705#Comment_117919705

TBH I think mods are in short supply at present and going with pre-approval would really add far too much work. It'd also open the mod team to accusations of being in on the suppression 😉

I'd propose making the basic info requirements to support the theory mandatory for an OP. How a poster chooses to implement them is their call, be it template or prose, but the requirement to at least support the theory would be the mandatory aspect.

Managing that would then devolve to the posters, with below par or unsupported OPs reported for Mod action.

sydthebeat · 21-09-2021 2:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919672#Comment_117919672

rather than trying to think of what wouldn't fit it... its easier just to consider "new conspiracy theory" as having to use said template.

again, we would need mods buy in on this:

to determine if the necessary level of argument is provided to allow it as a new thread (that level is to be set / determined by the mods)
to determine if someone tries to sneak a CT in by the back door by creating a general thread but laying it on thick about a specific.
to set out the clear expectations of the poster and the repliers (no link dumping / wild claim, and then running away would be a major expectation here. similarly 4 or 5 posters asking the same questions before a poster gets a chance to formulate an answer shouldnt be allowed)

for example if someone started a thread titled "why does covid 19 attract so many different conspiracy theories" but quickly funnels into a "covid 19 was man made, i tells ya" type in order to get around using the template

King Mob · 21-09-2021 2:39pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919753#Comment_117919753

The other issue is if conspiracy poster would also accept these rules.

I wouldn't be hopeful about that.

sydthebeat · 21-09-2021 2:40pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919749#Comment_117919749

mod supply isnt a good enough excuse for a lack of moderation. they can always appoint more, there is absolutely nothing stopping them bar refusal of prospective posters to take up the position

i believe a new CT post should be posted with a big *pending approval* first line.. and that should be an indicator of all other posters not to respond top the post until a mod has had a look at it, and removes the *pending approval* label

i absolutely dont believe it should be left to "self policing" as it will quickly descend to the shitshow we currently have

sydthebeat · 21-09-2021 2:41pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919799#Comment_117919799

you dont have to be.

like every other forum on this site, if you dont follow the rules, you get sanctioned.

banie01 · 21-09-2021 2:43pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919799#Comment_117919799

That places the ball firmly in the court of CTrs though. The proposed requirements are very straightforward and transparent. There's no hidden traps, just an expectation of a foundational theory that can be discussed. If an OP doesn't engage in that? IMO that's indicative of at least bad faith posting.

generic_throwaway · 21-09-2021 2:44pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919358#Comment_117919358

Whereas you think they are totally justified to claim that Bill Gates is injecting microchips into us to control us with 5G as he's the anti-christ.

(seeing as we are making up positions for each other now)

banie01 · 21-09-2021 2:47pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919814#Comment_117919814

Currently, with the site in the position it is now? I'd argue that mod supply is most certainly an issue and from discussion with some, mod tools too.

It's not self policing, it's how the site works when it is working normally IMO. Mods don't police every post, they act upon reports.

Also agree that CT should have more mods but even at that there is the issue of who's acceptable? Overheal for example became persona non gratia amongst the CTr's for relying on his professional experience and being quite robust in debunking and opposing nonsense.

That's part of what has led to this thread in the changes he made.

Mic 1972 · 21-09-2021 2:48pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919853#Comment_117919853

you are really narrowing down the anti-covid vaccine argument to that?

personally I dont know a single non-vaxed person who believes that

generic_throwaway · 21-09-2021 2:54pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919898#Comment_117919898

No, it just seemed a suitably reductive position to ascribe to you, as you did with my post.

banie01 · 21-09-2021 2:54pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919747#Comment_117919747

Who are they? Honestly don't mean to come across as dismissive or facetious, I'm actually genuinely interested to know who they are and how they are categorised.

sydthebeat · 21-09-2021 2:57pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919888#Comment_117919888

there certainly are examples in board.ie of mods having to review "pending" ... you cannot get access to the soccer forum without having every application reviewed. you need approval before a new forum / sub forum is set up etc

the current state of the site is not down to lack of moderation. its down to the migration and the messing up of mod powers due to this. Ill leave it to mods to clarify what the exact issues are, and if they lost a lot of mods after the migration, but i still would expect a reasonable level of moderation to occur across the board going forward. the mess we have now shouldnt be the expected norm.

i dont also believe that it should be down to posters to determine if a level of standard is met to start a new CT thread. Thats in effect ISNT a "standard". its agreement by consensus, and the one obvious thing you do not get on CT forum is consensus.

banie01 · 21-09-2021 3:07pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919954#Comment_117919954

Applying to join a restricted sub is a once off. It's not a review of every new OP on a sub-forum.

It's not consensus or even an expectation of standard in so far as managing content.

It is posters, reporting posts that do not include information specified as required in a charter/rule change. If the charter is changed to specify that a minimum amount of information is required for an OP on a theory? If the OP doesn't include that, posters hit report and a mod makes the call.

The theory could be anything, the mod doesn't need to have knowledge of it nor does it IMO need pending approval status for the mod to review. What is needed is that any specific info requirement in an amended charter is included.

All posters would be reporting is a potential rules breach, mod action would then be as simple as asking the OP to revisit and amend their post to include the info.

If the OP doesn't meet that requirement lock and delete.

Expecting pre-approval very every new thread on a forum is far too much mod involvement. The only forums where similar were possible was P.I and R.I and even now that's not possible currently.

Having posters report a breach of charter isn't onerous and it's how the modding on the site works.

21-09-2021 3:17pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117916594#Comment_117916594

"You cannot disprove a negative"

The statement "All swans are black" could easily be disproven by showing a white swan. It would be much more difficult to prove, which would require identifying all swans in the known universe.

Could you prove to me that gravity exists? A rock falling out of a window would easily negate it though.

A strong theory is one that has stood the test of time and rigouress challenge.

The covid-19 'lab leak' theory; everyone agrees upon most of the facts. That the virus originated from China. That the virus came from Wuhan. That a real virus did originate from somewhere around there. Probably animals were involved somewhere. The conspiracy theorists will then explain these facts by way of some conspiracy, e.g. "China created a biological weapon to attack the US", "it must have come from a lab", etc.. etc... You ask them to prove their claims and all you'll get is circumstantial evidence. The problem is, you ask someone who believes the virus originated 'naturally', as I do, and all the evidence they can provide is also circumstantial.

The sealioning is very real and not just in the CT forum. It's the latest tactic of the right-ons, and their raison d'etre as of late has been to shout 'conspiracy theorist! to label anyone discussing one of these topics as a crank. Its all political and not about 'oh the safety of humanity and the spreading of falsities!' They've been spreading enough of them themselves.

A lot of this ramped up when twitter started 'flagging' tweets, originally with the idea that mail-in voting would cause problems in the US election(They said this was a disputed claim). Since then, the idea that this process is not transparent has been labelled a 'conspiracy' (irregularities in the US elections) A conspiracy suggests a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful, but many are looking for a debate about whether a process was transparent.

"We're allowed to question things aren't we?" Of course you bloody well are, but not while act like an arse while doing it. Who wants to engage with someone who says "I'll happily educate you on the matter after you prove x..y..z... for me ". This type of twitter snark has become pretty widespread here. It seems with the removal of these types of charters being spoken about; it's kind of being encouraged.

Approaching these discussions with if/then type of questions might be the good faith approach here. If someone deliberately created this virus; doesn't this mean probably the cure is out there somewhere? If that were true; surely we wouldn't be seeing rich and powerful people getting the virus?, etc.. Following the logical conclusions of a theory is often the best way to negate them, or not.

No matter how many people I speak to about the moon landing; they're always absolutely positive we never went in apollo 11. "All just staged" they would say. No matter how much evidence I supply, the retroreflectors left there, how much easier it is for a craft to survive in space rather than in the high pressures of the deep ocean, the fact that the USSR acknowledged the US achievement, showing them footage... There is no way to prove this to them.

I could keep badgering them all day; prove to me where they shot the footage for the moon landings, prove to me that they didn't go to the moon,. etc.. etc.. the discussion will go no where, they might supply some scant evidence but will be unable to prove it to me. If we keep badgering each other we'll end up hating each other, the neutral observer will be wasting their time and the mod has more work to do .

Most people you talk to that spend any amount of time on the internet would tell you that Jeffrey Epstein was murdered. You ask for proof and they start talking about shadowy government operatives honey trapping the world's most powerful for their nefarious purposes. The facts are not in dispute, Epstein was found dead in his jail cell. The cameras were out at the time. Cameras were found all over his house on his own private Island somewhere where he flew the rich and famous.

Theories should be a discussion about the facts; which shouldn't be in dispute. But dispute the facts to your hearts content if needs be. If someone posts something in the Conspiracy theories forum they're not posting it in the "This is the facts" forum.

Hector Savage · 21-09-2021 3:18pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117918440#Comment_117918440

Well

Death(s) At least 25

Injuries 2000+ law enforcement officials and an unknown number of civilians

Arrested Over 14,000 (as of June 27, 2020)

Property damage $1–2 billion damages (May 26–June 8, 2020)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_United_States_racial_unrest

Hector Savage · 21-09-2021 3:19pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117918480#Comment_117918480

what's your point that I admit they are loons and yet say there is worse ?

There IS worse - see my post above.

1000s of loons are more dangerous then Gemma and 12 people that turn up outside the Dail ... how the media reports on these things and the threat they really are is important.

Based on headlines it seemed that the "Insurrection" was more deadly to society than the Antifa/BLM/Anarchist riots of 2020 - which examining the evidence above is completely untrue.

Anyway, you won't convince me, I won't convince you.

I will step out now ...

Good bye!!

sydthebeat · 21-09-2021 3:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117920000#Comment_117920000

Expecting pre-approval very every new thread on a forum is far too much mod involvement

seriously, how often do you think new conspiracy theories will be posted ? one a week? one a fortnight? im not asking mods here to be spending hours daily approving CT threads.

I can guarantee you that there will be more frequent requests for approval to join the soccer forum than there will be for new CT threads.. absolutely guaranteed !

If the charter is changed to specify that a minimum amount of information is required for an OP on a theory

this has already been discussed yesterday, we're going over old ground here. who determines what the minimum amount is? is it every question is answered? we've already shown that thats not possible. is an answer to a question of "i dont know" acceptable? i fit is, how many questions can you answer like that? what if the answer is "its not yet known as its a developing situation"

can you see already that the elastic can be stretched in every direction, and leaving it to posters to police what acceptable and not is in no way going to work. All it takes is one person to report, one persons "standard" not met. That will not work. its not setting a standard.

The theory could be anything, the mod doesn't need to have knowledge of it

of course not, but the moderators of the forum should have the final say in if the necessary level has been met to allow the thread. Moderators talk to each other, they have private forums for discussion of this stuff.

in my opinion, what you are suggesting is not going to change the current state of the CT forum one jot. You will have the skeptics reporting threads claiming insufficient level of ifo provided, and youll have the CTs claiming they cannot discuss topics because everything is being reported.

The responsibility for this must be take from the hands of both of these sides, thats pretty much the raison d'etre of this thread. Both sides simply cannot agree, so expecting them to police by consensus is fanciful.

breezy1985 · 21-09-2021 3:24pm

Looking at the CT forums top posts right now it to me looks obvious that it's being used much like CA and AH by political posters who don't have the guts to put their opinions on the politics or science forum because they either know it's BS or inflammatory

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-09-2021 3:31pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919129#Comment_117919129

I agree, maybe fiction would be the wrong label to use but a sub forum could be the way forward.

A debate on wether covid was man made has merits and while still a conspiracies it should still be debated vigorously with both sides being polite, answering questions and of course providing proof for thier claims.

A debate on wether Elvis is still alive and working in Harvey Normans in Clonakillty would definitely belong in the sub forum.

banie01 · 21-09-2021 3:32pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117920054#Comment_117920054

The information "necessary" for an OP has been lain out by you, null zero, KM and others.

Yes, btw seriously. Shifting the burden of quality control to a mod incurs a burden on them. It's already a fairly thankless role and now you'd seek to have the policing of quality placed on them rather than acting as they have all along in responding to reports.

Further it place a particular target upon the Mod tasked with that particular role that leaves them open to abuse and more.

The standard of information required for the discussion of a theory can be placed in the charter. The community as a whole can decide whether that burden is met when they read an OP and rather than spam a thread with who, what, where, why and how for a theory.

Can hit report, as if the post doesn't meet the standard it's just that. A matter for review by a mod.

And again, it's not policing by consensus. No mod will take action on a post regardless of the number of reports if it doesn't breach a rule.

The number of reports are irrelevant, what's relevant is that if a post is reported for not meeting the info requirements, that it is actioned by a mod.

It's not X-Factor, it's not a vote, it's the community acting as every other forum does and reporting breach or suspected breach of charter and allowing mods to deal with it.

Something needs to be done about the conspiracy theories forum

Comments