Of Skeptics and Bannings

[Craig Weiler]

The only thing that is going to work here is outright confining the ideologue skeptics to the BvS forum. They will always seek to push the rules. It's in their nature and unless the rules are extremely clear cut, you'll always have trouble. If they want to argue about something they see somewhere else on the site they can start a thread in their own section.

Another reason that this needs to be clear cut is that otherwise you're trying moderate how much doubt is reasonable. That's impossible to do.

 

[Typoz]

If they want to argue about something they see somewhere else on the site they can start a thread in their own section.

Them versus us again. I really don't like this type of terminology. As far as I'm concerned, it is the ideas which are grouped or categorised, but not the people.

 

[K9!]

Or, if what you really want is a haven, then select one of the forums and make it the haven.

~~ Paul

There is no need for the haven when the main forum has been set up for the kinds of discussion once delegated to that space. It makes sense in a forum set up by proponents interested in moving past the "stuck on stupid" material which dominated the old forum to segregate that material from the main community here.

You've been given BvsS. Enjoy it!

Asking for the proponents to move to into a haven here would be like asking JREF to set up a BvsS sub-forum while the proponents take over the main areas of use. It would make no sense.

 

[K9!]

The only thing that is going to work here is outright confining the ideologue skeptics to the BvS forum. They will always seek to push the rules. It's in their nature and unless the rules are extremely clear cut, you'll always have trouble. If they want to argue about something they see somewhere else on the site they can start a thread in their own section.

Another reason that this needs to be clear cut is that otherwise you're trying moderate how much doubt is reasonable. That's impossible to do.

I agree! Either they need to be confined, or outright banned. It's quite clear they don't wish to abide by the rules of the forum. And no matter how clearly the rules are defined, they seem to be intent on pushing back and looking for loopholes. More rules just mean more of a challenge (like an upper level to a video game!)... and apparently more entertainment for those who want to violate the spirit of the community Alex is trying to create here.

 

[Alex]

This issue of how to deal with skeptical nincompoopery is something that has come up again and again over the years. On one hand, it seems like a waste of time to re-hash the same stuck-on-stupid arguments. On the other hand, in most cases, these folks are doing little more than advancing the status quo position we regularly run across during the Skeptiko show.

We I re-launched the forum I set-up the Mod+ system. At times it has worked, but at other times it seems to have been little more than another hurdle for our skeptical friends to scale in an attempt to win us over to their position.

So, I'd thought I throw this open for discussion... again. Let me hear your thoughts.

Alex,

If that function could exist or be made to work, maybe there could be a way where if members don't respect the forum rules regarding MOD+ and the non-BvS sub-forums, after receiving sufficient warnings, they would only be allowed to post in the BvS forum?

If the self-styled "skeptics" argue that the definition of what constitutes "skeptical silliness" are vague - or just what you don't want in those sub-forums and threads -, maybe that could be spelled out more.

yea, I think that's where we're heading.

 

[Alex]

IMO, we need rules with teeth. At present, a number of sceptics are like terrible two-year-olds doing everything they can to disrupt and derail, and Alex, God bless him, wants everyone to play "nice and bonny" as my old dad used to say.

Ain't gonna happen. Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile, because they aren't at all interested in forming a community. They're interested in causing maximum mayhem. What Alex wants may actually be impossible--a pipe dream--though one can admire his humanity and wish, with him, that it could be so.

I have an idea for introducing rules with teeth that are nonetheless fair and reasonable, but make no mistake, would end up with repeat offenders being permanently banned. It may not be the best possible solution, but it's the best I've been able to think of. I don't want to discuss it with disruptors as it will just be regarded as another opportunity to spit their dummies out.

It's an idea I am willing to take a due part in developing/implementing and hope others would also. I think someone, or a group or committee needs to take ownership of the problem and help make this a forum with a distinct purpose, i.e. a gathering of intelligent people of good will who have the intention of sharing and learning. If people can't do that, be they sceptic or proponent, then there has to be some way to get rid of them. Every forum I've ever belonged to has had this prerogative and I've seen it exercised quite often. It's useless giving people an indefinite number of short-term suspensions, and pisses off the very people who should be the backbone of the forum.

If you go to a forum for fans of cycling and tell them they're a bunch of pansies who should be into cars, you'll get short shrift. If to a forum for philately, they won't want to hear incessantly about the superiority of numismatics. If to a forum about psi phenomena, they won't want their conversations interrupted by ill-mannered and unconstructive twerps who have nothing better to do than try to stop them doing so: it's essentially very simple.

Alex, what I'd like to do if you're open to it is to get people with an interest in sharing and developing my idea (or coming up with a better one between us) to register that interest on this thread, then start a background conversation with them. Maybe some or all of those people could help out in moderation duties: I think those could be light with the right implementation, and that would help lift a burden off your shoulders because you could delegate responsibility to them for moderation affairs whilst of course retaining the final say. Naturally, the group would submit any finalised proposal to you for approval. You could take part in the background conversation yourself if you wished.

That's my proposal, for whatever it's worth. Over to you and anyone who might register an interest.

sounds good and looks like you already have others that will help in this effort. For now, I think we should ask our skeptical friends to stay in BvS.

one point on my "pipe dream"... it's not only that I wish everyone would play nice (I know this is a pipe dream :)) I want to build in a reality check for proponents/believers. I tire of talk of "paradigm change" by folks who are unwilling to deal with the uncomfortable reality of Wiki wars and SOS debates.

 

[Alex]

Who are "they", and how do you identify "them"?

I kinda think you're one :) Pls confine your posts to the BvS forum until we sort all this out.

 

[Alex]

This is really simple, folks. All you have to do is declare your new thread Mod+ and then specify the assumptions that must be made while posting in the thread. If you don't want any argument at all, then simply specify that no negative arguments are permitted. Almost everyone is quite good at following the per-thread rules. What you should not do is start a thread that sounds like it's completely open-minded and then get annoyed when someone disagrees with your sooper sekrit assumptions.

There is no way that we can read your mind, so just be explicit in the opening post. And if people want a forum equivalent to the Haven at the old place, then make one. There were hardly any violations of haven-ism in that forum.

~~ Paul

even simpler... pls confine your posts to the BvS forum until we sort all this out :)

 

[Alex]

Valid question, I don't think there is actually an "us" and a "them".

However, people do self-select in choosing whether or not to abide by the rules, which gives a form of voluntary categorisation. One of the issues there is whether the rules are both clear and consistently applied.

this sounds like a bigger problem that it is. In most cases we're talking about people who have made 100s of posts.

 

[Michael]

Them versus us again. I really don't like this type of terminology. As far as I'm concerned, it is the ideas which are grouped or categorised, but not the people.

What is being categorized in the distinction between BvS and the other forums is the level of debate not the people. As an example: If the debate is about NDEs are illusions versus they are real, that kind of stuff belongs in BvS. If the debate is about what kinds of experiences should be classified as NDEs, or how do NDEs related to OBOs or LD, let's say, that belongs in one of the other forums. If it turns out that the same people are consistently having the same arguments then they will of course tend to migrate to the appropriate forum.

 

[Alex]

I also very much dislike the Stuck on Stupid arguments. It is very frustrating to attempt an intelligent discussion on a topic and then end up with SOS instead. I have no interest in persuading anyone to drop their beliefs, to break-up this community, or to wind people up. My interest is in intelligent discussion in the hopes I will learn new things (I have) and will have my mind changed (it has).

I think the B vs. S sub forum is a good idea. I have honoured the mod+ label and stayed out of those threads, other than the AWARE thread which got turned into a mod+ thread. It was confusing to me what was supposed to happen under those circumstances, given that people still seemed to want to discuss issues which arose prior to the placement of the mod+ label. It was also confusing to me why Arouet was banned for participating in a discussion which you (Alex) seemed to be encouraging. And I don't know what happened to simply asking people to no longer participate in a specific thread, when it was felt they were hindering that specific discussion.

I am confused about what distinguishes one mod+ thread from another and what distinguishes the rest of the forum from B vs. S. The rules and explanations given do not make sense to me. I have no interest in arguing from the assumption that "mind=brain", yet I recognize that I am one of "Them" you are trying to keep out. I sincerely thought I was following the intent, yet I failed so miserably I was suspended. But I learned a lot from that incident. Rather than worrying about whether or not it is safe for me to post in a mod+ thread or in the other forums, it makes sense for me to regard B vs. S as my Haven instead.

So while there are growing pains, I think your idea is good and that it can work. I still think the name is inappropriate - something like "Critical Discussion" would be better (as in "characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment: a critical reading"), as I think we can do without encouraging "Us vs. Them" distinctions. But a stronger emphasis on moving discussions which become critical into this forum, and kicking people out of specific threads if they are obstructive, will move this along I think. We are all learning here - don't give up on us. :)

Linda

I'm open to changing the name of the BvS forum. Whatever y'all come up with is fine. But I do think the disruptive aspect has to be addressed. If most forum members find your style disruptive then I oughta do something... otherwise, the other conversations (and the ones I'm most interested in having) don't happen.

So, pls confine your posts to the BvS forum until we sort all this out.

 

[Alex]

Here is a list of folks I've asked to stay in the BvS forum until we sort out our plans (pls suggest additions/deletions):
- Paul
- Fls
- Arouet (when/if he comes back)
- Kay
- Steve001
- Malf
- Dakota Rider

 

[Tyler]

Or one could use the Ignore feature and/or refuse to engage these [pseudo]skeptics in the first place.

Grow up. It only takes a mild form of self-control.

 

[Michael]

Or one could use the Ignore feature and/or refuse to engage skeptics in the first place.

Grow up. It only takes a mild form of self-control.

We are and normally ignoring them will work with someone who isn't intent on being disruptive to the conversation. Believe it or not, there are certain "skeptics" who never get the point of the debate and will argue in circles and never change. They enter the discussion with the intent to sound off their one note argument which in a nutshell is to claim that it's all just woo under the cover. Having to ignore them is an imposition on the rest of the participants who want to have an honest and open discussion. At some point you need to draw the line between accommodating disruptive behavior and recognizing that type of behavior adds zero value, and keeps others from participating. If that doesn't make sense, check out some of the threads on the old forum and see that simply ignoring them doesn't work.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

While this sounds reasonable, I suspect that it won't work in practice. This still depends upon whether you interpret the OP in the same way that one of the self-appointed thread cops does. And I don't see that happening. Alex will still receive complaints.

Oh, he certainly will. But I think he will receive fewer than if vague per-forum rules plus some per-thread rules have to be followed. If I misinterpret the OP rules, the thread owner can point that out in a post.

For example, there seems to be the concept floating about that if I assume mind /= brain, then I shouldn't be disagreeing with the thread at all. But of course that isn't true. Additional rules in the OP would fix this problem.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We are and normally ignoring them will work with someone who isn't intent on being disruptive to the conversation. Believe it or not, there are certain "skeptics" who never get the point of the debate and will argue in circles and never change. They enter the discussion with the intent to sound off their one note argument which in a nutshell is to claim that it's all just woo under the cover. Having to ignore them is an imposition on the rest of the participants who want to have an honest and open discussion. At some point you need to draw the line between accommodating disruptive behavior and recognizing that type of behavior adds zero value, and keeps others from participating. If that doesn't make sense, check out some of the threads on the old forum and see that simply ignoring them doesn't work.

I agree that you may find my behavior disrupting, but the least you could do is admit that it is almost never because I am being purposefully disruptive and/or don't get to the point. That is, unless the point is merely to agree with whatever the good guys are saying. Whether someone is being honest or open is often in the eye of the beholder.

if you want a forum with no skeptics, just admit it.

~~ Paul

 

[Michael]

I agree that you may find my behavior disrupting, but the least you could do is admit that it is almost never because I am being purposefully disruptive and/or don't get to the point. That is, unless the point is merely to agree with whatever the good guys are saying. Whether someone is being honest or open is often in the eye of the beholder.

if you want a forum with no skeptics, just admit it.

~~ Paul

Hi Paul, I wan't thinking of you in particular. The conversation you and Bernardo are having is very interesting and actually an example of what I think can work well. I am only focused on the behavior not the individual. Take a look at the homeopathy thread and let me know if you can't identify the kind of behavior I'm talking about.

 

[Alex]

Or one could use the Ignore feature and/or refuse to engage skeptics in the first place.

Grow up. It only takes a mild form of self-control.

That doesn't really work either. keep in mind there's at least a 5/1 ratio of watchers/posters. It's confusing and counterproductive to have threads of skeptical silliness that everyone just ignores.

 

[Michael Larkin]

sounds good and looks like you already have others that will help in this effort. For now, I think we should ask our skeptical friends to stay in BvS.

one point on my "pipe dream"... it's not only that I wish everyone would play nice (I know this is a pipe dream :)) I want to build in a reality check for proponents/believers. I tire of talk of "paradigm change" by folks who are unwilling to deal with the uncomfortable reality of Wiki wars and SOS debates.

Okay. I'd ask everyone interested in taking part in the working group to signal that by clicking "agree" on this post. I'll wait a few days to allow people to read this and think about it, and then invite them and yourself to a new private conversation where I'll outline my idea to get the ball rolling. I don't propose to be the group leader or anything, only the person who kicks things off.

One thing that concerns me is that not everyone who might want to help out and signal their agreement to do so may be aware of this thread: I only came to know of it because someone contacted me privately. It'd be nice if we could ensure everyone sees it. Maybe you have some way of doing that, Alex?

I take your point about about needing a reality check, and it's a fair one. All I'd say is that even amongst averred proponents, there is a degree of scepticism depending on the topic under consideration. As I've said before, I don't think we're a bunch of sheeple in an echo chamber! ;)

Edit #1: Kay, I see you have signalled agreement, but Alex has asked you above not to contribute to this thread. I'll have to ignore your tick.

Edit #2: Just to be clear, signing up for the proposed discussion does not mean that you are committing to any recommendations for moderation duties that may come out of it. You're just signing up for the discussion: implementation issues are something separate.

 

[fls]

I'm open to changing the name of the BvS forum. Whatever y'all come up with is fine. But I do think the disruptive aspect has to be addressed. If most forum members find your style disruptive then I oughta do something... otherwise, the other conversations (and the ones I'm most interested in having) don't happen.

So, pls confine your posts to the BvS forum until we sort all this out.

And this forum, right? I'm guessing that this discussion is okay. It has been useful.

I agree that the disruptive aspect has to be addressed and that none of us is interested in dealing with disruptions. I realize that some people find me disruptive, and since I don't derive any benefit or enjoyment from engaging with them either, it would be nice to find a way to keep these conversations separate. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm on board with the separate forum area thing for now.

I like the name "Critical Discussion" because I think the equivocation works in its favour. The preamble can make use of that - "If you see these discussions as a "careful, exact evaluation and judgment", then this area is for you. If you see them as "inclined to judge severely and find fault", then it's not." It is also disruptive for me to have to argue about blinding with someone who understands it poorly and regards its mention as a device to "find fault as a last resort". If I no longer have to do that (presumably those posters will stay away from the Critical Discussion area), I'll also be a happy camper (I realize that's not the goal, but a girl can dream :)). I'll see what suggestions the other Thems might have as to the name.

Linda