What does Mod+ mean?

#1
This is no longer a agnostic vs. proponent issue.

There appears to be an effort by some to define
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:
#2
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.
 
#3
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.
Not "freedom of speech".... In fact quite the opposite: Clarity on what restrictions are in place.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#4
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.
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
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?
 
#6
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
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.
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:
#8
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.
The latest victims of mod+ vagueness (chuck.drake and hjortron) were "proponents". Please do not reduce everything to us vs them.
 
#9
The latest victims of mod+ vagueness (chuck.drake and hjortron) were "proponents". Please do not reduce everything to us vs them.
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.
 
#11

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#14
The latest victims of mod+ vagueness (chuck.drake and hjortron) were "proponents". Please do not reduce everything to us vs them.
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.
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#15
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
Actually, officially, it isn't. This is what it is:

WHAT IS


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.)
 
#16
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.
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
Actually, officially, it isn't. This is what it is:

WHAT IS


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.)
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.
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#18
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.
Who bloody knows? That's not spelled out either.
 
Top