What does Mod+ mean?

Discussion in 'Guidelines & Introductions' started by malf, Sep 8, 2014.

  1. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,038
    This is no longer a agnostic vs. proponent issue.

    There appears to be an effort by some to define [​IMG] on the fly, AFTER the thread has started. This makes open, honest and meaningful discussion very difficult and has led to some recent bans, suspensions and general ill feeling.

    To use the tag as a "booby trap" to remove any posts (or suspend posters) that challenge the OP seems patently at odds with the basic tenets of this (or any) discussion forum. A model for moving forward might be to look at Linda's thread where she has at least tried to set some reasonable parameters at the beginning of the thread.

    http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...mmendations-for-parapsychology-research.1249/

    This is simply a request for posters using the Mod+ tag be as transparent as they can be in their OP. I would be grateful for any feedback/thoughts.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2014
  2. gabriel

    gabriel New

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,644
    This is always framed as a freedom of speech, or even a human rights issue. It isn't. It's about the normal function of a board based on an idea, and stopping people who are instinctively opposed to it dominating the discussion. Michael nailed it in post 384 of the rules and tone thread. I commend it to you.
     
    Obiwan likes this.
  3. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,038
    Not "freedom of speech".... In fact quite the opposite: Clarity on what restrictions are in place.
     
  4. Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

    Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,486
    Right, then the person starting the thread should state that no opposing ideas are allowed, or whatever the desired rules are, in the opening post. Because not all Mod+ threads have the same moderation rules.

    I'm not sure what post 384 has to do with the general case.

    ~~ Paul
     
  5. Pollux

    Pollux New

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2013
    Messages:
    1,005
    The MOD+ - isn't it a sort of marker that this particular thread, of so and so, will be heavily moderated and screened by the Mod's - which will exclude just about any kind of opposing views on the subject, since "the hammer" comes down on everyone that raises questions? Or have I misunderstood the concept of MOD+?

    I haven't checked on all the MOD+-threads but I seem to recall that some had very aggravating, provoking and teasing titles and topics for most skeptics here. Like (paraphrasing mind you); "-Does skeptics generally have lower IQ - or is it something in their water" etc.

    I know that there have to be some skeptic-free zones on the forum that people can use. Because we know from the other forum that some very interesting subjects started up between people, who somewhat agreed on the topic discussed, and wanted it to be an open relaxed exchange of experiences, methods, thinking etc. But instead the thread was totally thrashed and ripped to shreds by skeptics marching in en masse and "went to work on it".

    It's hard to make everyone happy on a forum, but I believe the skeptic-climate is a bit better here now, than it was ever before. But I might be wrong, since I do not participate as much, in all the threads here, as I did before on the other forum. But I think it would be a more vibrant and lively forum if thread-starters didn't put the MOD+ on every single thread just out of habit, and that we had some serious back-and-forth with the skeptics instead. :)
    Am I wrong do you think?
     
    malf likes this.
  6. K9!

    K9! New

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,591
    I think the skeptics have ruined any chance of interesting conversations on the forum. They should be banned. But instead, Alex (@alex.tsakiris ) is letting proponents be banned or driven away in frustration. I realize that Alex likes to keep skeptics around just to show what idiots they are, but unfortunately the rest of us pay the price for that.
     
  7. Pollux

    Pollux New

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2013
    Messages:
    1,005
    As I said in my post above; I haven't been that deeply involved in the forum and topics I was before. So I might have missed the chaos you talk about. If that's so, then it's pretty sad and counterproductive. So, maybe the MOD+ is essential, to keep interesting forum-members on this forum, whom would otherwise have left.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2014
  8. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,038
    The latest victims of mod+ vagueness (chuck.drake and hjortron) were "proponents". Please do not reduce everything to us vs them.
     
  9. K9!

    K9! New

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,591
    As I said, proponents are being banned and driven away. It is about us vs them. Alex wants the stuck on stupid people around as an example of how skeptics behave. The rest of us suffer for that.
     
  10. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,038
    Three completely "skeptic" free zones?
     
  11. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,038
    This was nothing to do with "the skeptics" (it was a coalition of ghost and Andy). I have been consistent in my support for hjortron.

    For anyone who doesn't know:

    http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...-suicide-skeptics-there-is-no-afterlife.1251/
     
  12. steve001

    steve001 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,053
    Such hate.
    I think there are interesting conversations.
     
  13. K9!

    K9! New

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,591
    It isn't an emotional issue at all. That would be your problem, not mine.

    Just keep on being stuck on stupid and your future here is assured.
     
    tim likes this.
  14. Ian Gordon

    Ian Gordon Ninshub Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,676
    I think this forum suffers from lack of clearer guidelines, and, for all the respect I have for him, and as it appears to me, a lack of participation in the moderation by Alex. (Where is he these days anyway?)

    That being said, I think hjortron being banned and chuck.drake leaving didn't have anything to do with the thread being MOD+, but rather because they presented an already well-established metaphysical perspective (which wasn't "pro-suicide", like you well articulated it, malf) that didn't fit with what is mainstream-culture acceptable. Yes, even on Skeptiko.
     
    brooke, malf and K9! like this.
  15. Ian Gordon

    Ian Gordon Ninshub Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,676
    Actually, officially, it isn't. This is what it is:

    WHAT IS [​IMG]

    Now that we've been at the Skeptiko forum thing for a while we've noticed there are some discussion that need special moderation. People who accept that scientific materialism isn't a workable idea generally will be a good fit for these threads as the discussions generally explore what lies beyond the assumption that "consciousness is an illusion created by biological robots" (for more on this see: http://www.skeptiko.com/229-5-things-about-skeptiko/).

    If you're not a good fit for these threads we may ask you to move over to The Believer Versus Skeptic Debates forum where we hash out debates about science and spirituality from a prove-it-all-from-the-ground-up perspective. If you're generally skeptical of the material presented in the Skeptiko podcast you're probably a good fit for this forum.
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2013

    http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/forum-rules-please-read-before-posting.4/

    The second paragraph implies that Skeptics should stick to the CD forum. Which makes having other sub-forum threads MOD+ or not MOD+ redundant and meaningless, and just creates confusion. (Or maybe what's written up there intends something else I can't clearly see, but if so it's badly written.)
     
    K9! and Trancestate like this.
  16. steve001

    steve001 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,053
    Taking into account past interactions and your blatantly obvious contempt for any display of skepticism your words betray you with the emotion they bare.
     
  17. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,038
    The "house skeptics/agnostics" were also permitted in the "Other Stuff" forum but that (I think) was designed for non-controversial "other stuff". TV shows or music we wanted to share. Funny videos etc... You know, stuff we can chat about in a relaxed zone. Village building ;) That sub forum seems to have lost its way a bit.
     
    Pollux and Trancestate like this.
  18. Ian Gordon

    Ian Gordon Ninshub Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,676
    Who bloody knows? That's not spelled out either.
     
    K9! likes this.
  19. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,038
    :D
     
    Ian Gordon likes this.
  20. K9!

    K9! New

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,591
    I'm perfectly fine with true skepticism. It's your silly dogma that bugs me.
     
    tim, Pollux and Trancestate like this.

Share This Page