227. Your Help Needed Defining Rules of New Skeptiko Forum

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, you know how I tend to feel about your litmus tests Alex! But re: this wiki situation - I've tried to follow up on some of Craig's posts and actually go and track the debates that went on over this Sheldrake page thing - Frankly I couldn't figure out how to find any kind of ongoing conversation! I find navigating wiki talk pages quite confusing personally and tend to give up after a minute or so. I'm not sure how many members have taken the time to review all the relevant posts. I suspect most are relying on Craig's summaries. I'm not taking a position on whether his summaries are accurate or not for the reasons I mentioned above but i certainly wouldn't base a litmus test on them!

Look Alex, I get where you're coming from: you are so convinced by the parapsychological studies and the descriptions of them that you believe anyone who doesn't agree with you is either an ideologue or ignorant or silly, and you can do such a litmus test which will result in all the skeptics leaving the site. But if you go down that road, the road of stifled opinion and enforced points of view - at what point can you no longer call yourself open minded and must admit that what you are doing is instilling a new dogma?

Re: moderation, I think moderation should largely be about enforcing rule #1: treat people with respect. It should almost never be about ideas. If you want to have a litmus test make it about that.

Arouet,

In case you hadn't noticed, we don't moderate based on ideology. If we did, proponents wouldn't have been banned, but you and Paul would have been. We really do like to see genuine skeptic/proponent debate. What we don't like are infantile posturing, aggression, and distractions.

AP
 
Last edited:
If you were going to single out the one thing that separates the good skepticism from the bad skepticism on this site is whether they are defending a skeptical position or not.

Skepticism is not a defensive position. Anyone who continually takes a skeptical position and never varies from it over the course of time is an ideologue and should be booted. Skeptics are either here to learn or they should go to the JREF forum.

I don't think that is going to work. I have a proponent's position and cannot imagine what would make me change it, but that doesn't mean I can't be nice about it. Arouet, though he may disagree with proponents on some things, has managed to do so within normal societal expectations, so I don't think the disagreements should be held against him or anyone else. What is more difficult to pin down is the matter of self-education. At my school, if someone doesn't follow the lessons or understand the material after a reasonable period of time, we expel them. Here, i would like to see skeptiks make an effort to understand the justifications behind the various positions aired on the podcast, but that may mean understanding Ray Hyman better than Rupert Sheldrake. I may think Hyman is a lazy thinker, but don't think that standard should be applied to forum members, particularly because some them probably have the same opinion of me and Alex.

AP
 
I notice we have a ratings system. That could be useful in monitoring people who don't seem to be making constructive postings. Not sure if admins have some means of automatically tracking this? At any rate, it's a good way of letting those who are getting up people's noses know that's what they're doing. And on the plus side, of course, it's a quick way of letting people know their posts are appreciated.

I was thinking the same thing until I remembered some posters seriously abused this kind of feature on the old forum. That is, if the feature had been used, their mass post-flagging spam activities would have seriously distorted the reputation meters. I like the idea, but if we used it, I would want to know how to avoid abusing it.

AP
 
Last edited:
Yay! I got a trophy - 1st post! NZ time pays off... Been thinking about all this. Maybe a fair start would be a rule over repetition of the same argument over several posts? Make a point, move on. Others can engage with it or not. This may cut out some of the stuff Alex gets tired of? This could be applied to "skeptical nincompoopery" as well as other types (religious, political, etc)

This does make sense, but as we all know, some people are pretty slippery. Regardless, I like this rule. To make it work, I think a mod will have to post a warning to draw a line in the sand here. This means the post gets flagged, the mod checks and agrees with the flag, posts a warning, then if it is ignored, a three week ban. I also think that ignoring warnings should start with a three week ban, not two days.

AP
 
If you were going to single out the one thing that separates the good skepticism from the bad skepticism on this site is whether they are defending a skeptical position or not.

Skepticism is not a defensive position. Anyone who continually takes a skeptical position and never varies from it over the course of time is an ideologue and should be booted. Skeptics are either here to learn or they should go to the JREF forum.

This is what I tried saying in my failed thread on Nassim Taleb, skeptic and author of Antifragile . . . Skeptics are not confirmers . . . and - not to start an off topic thing here - this is what's so aggrevating: the community that centers around Skeptiko and the parapsychological community is, whether they realize it or not, attempting to disconfirm something - materialism . . . or, it's rather that they/we are simply skeptical of it. And it's those that are typically called "skeptics" that are actually confirmers of the old status quo, trying to defend something and plug leaks . . . and are thus prompted to scramble all over the place trying to come up with new (and often weak) defenses. Though this isn't how it's normally billed; normally the parapsychologists are billed as "trying to prove" that the parapsychological stuff exists.

As for how to navigate the moderation thing, I just think the fact that you - one - potentially struggles a bit with it is good enough. There's no bottomline rule that can be drawn that will suffice over time and in any situation. Flexibility is needed. And for a forum to stay fun and engaging and readable, opposition simply has to be there. Period.
 
I will say, though, that I like the new look here better than the old one . . . though I'm sure that those who spent more time 'over there' will take some time to acclimate here . . .
 
I've been out of town and basically offline for a while and was pleasantly surprised to see this new forum. The old one was great for being incredibly active and for the input being intelligent and knowledgeable. However, I must admit I found it disheartening and even depressing. I think that was due to a couple things. One was the outright discord. I don't mind disagreement, but I am very uncomfortable with the antipathy that often goes along with it, and that I felt I saw a lot on the old forum. The other was just the complete lack of accord on the most basic of issues. You've got "materialism is dead--utterly refuted." And you've got "there literally is no evidence for anything paranormal." As a result of those two factors, the more time I spent on the forum, the worse I felt. So I tended to check in and give my thoughts on the latest podcast and on Alex's "tee-up" questions, just because I enjoy the podcast so much, and then not say much more. It was just too draining.

In terms of the new forum, I've got a somewhat radical suggestion. I've just returned home from Arizona, where my organization concluded a teacher training. The group of us had been in a very intense process for 18 months, and now that we were together again in the flesh, the accord between us felt tremendous. We've got a very adult bunch and everyone knows it is completely fair game to disagree with me (as the head teacher). Indeed, much of the broad outline of the training was designed at a group level by a group consisting mostly of the trainees (we all had been involved together before the form training). As a result, the accord felt really healthy. It felt like a joining of free minds who simply have a common perception of the key truths involved. It was a great feeling.

My observation is that Skeptiko has been split between the frank advocacy seen in Alex's podcasts and the fundamental divide present in the forum. Because of that divide, the forum gave the impression that we are, at least in part, there to hash out whether there is any truth at all in the topics that Alex advocates so strongly for in the podcasts. It was a weird divide, one that perhaps in part grew out of the gap between where Alex started and where he's ended up.

My somewhat radical suggestion is that some kind of statement of belief/perspective/purpose be crafted, one that more reflects the orientation of the podcasts. Something like: we are an evidence-based community that, while acknowledging that far more investigation needs to be done and the jury is still out on many topics, the evidence is strongly suggestive of the independence of mind from brain and the reality of paranormal abilities, and our purpose is to.... I'm not putting that forward as even a draft of a statement. But I suggest that something along those lines be crafted.

And then those who join the forum would need to tick a box in which they state that they are in accord with that statement--they agree with that perspective and that purpose. What we would get as a result is a community that is not a bunch of robots, mindlessly agreeing on every detail, but a community that at least has a common starting point. It doesn't mean we think the debunkers and deniers are evil. But they have their forums already. How many do we have?

In the teacher training I was referring to earlier, that wonderful sense of accord would have been easily spoiled by just a couple of vocal people who did not agree on the basics. Such people could have easily stopped the group from really joining. My guess is that on this forum most of want a basic accord, on top of which we are then free to explore the details and undecided issues, as well as have frank discussions about how to spread our point of view in the world.

I don't think we are going to achieve the desired result just through effective moderation. The skeptics could be quite polite and considerate and the forum could be free of interpersonal conflict, yet without that sense of fundamental accord growing up. I don't know if my suggestion would work or if it's even right, but I think it's worth considering.
 
Any options to choose how many posts per page? I don't see any options in preferences to change it from the default 20.
 
Alex, I am sparky subscribed here under my real name, you banned me on the old forum.
If you do not like me posting over here, let me know, but I would like to wheig in on the subject of this thread since it has to do directly with my banning, so what do you think are you going to give me a chance to state my case?
 
I've been out of town and basically offline for a while and was pleasantly surprised to see this new forum. The old one was great for being incredibly active and for the input being intelligent and knowledgeable. However, I must admit I found it disheartening and even depressing. I think that was due to a couple things. One was the outright discord. I don't mind disagreement, but I am very uncomfortable with the antipathy that often goes along with it, and that I felt I saw a lot on the old forum. The other was just the complete lack of accord on the most basic of issues. You've got "materialism is dead--utterly refuted." And you've got "there literally is no evidence for anything paranormal." As a result of those two factors, the more time I spent on the forum, the worse I felt. So I tended to check in and give my thoughts on the latest podcast and on Alex's "tee-up" questions, just because I enjoy the podcast so much, and then not say much more. It was just too draining.

In terms of the new forum, I've got a somewhat radical suggestion. I've just returned home from Arizona, where my organization concluded a teacher training. The group of us had been in a very intense process for 18 months, and now that we were together again in the flesh, the accord between us felt tremendous. We've got a very adult bunch and everyone knows it is completely fair game to disagree with me (as the head teacher). Indeed, much of the broad outline of the training was designed at a group level by a group consisting mostly of the trainees (we all had been involved together before the form training). As a result, the accord felt really healthy. It felt like a joining of free minds who simply have a common perception of the key truths involved. It was a great feeling.

My observation is that Skeptiko has been split between the frank advocacy seen in Alex's podcasts and the fundamental divide present in the forum. Because of that divide, the forum gave the impression that we are, at least in part, there to hash out whether there is any truth at all in the topics that Alex advocates so strongly for in the podcasts. It was a weird divide, one that perhaps in part grew out of the gap between where Alex started and where he's ended up.

My somewhat radical suggestion is that some kind of statement of belief/perspective/purpose be crafted, one that more reflects the orientation of the podcasts. Something like: we are an evidence-based community that, while acknowledging that far more investigation needs to be done and the jury is still out on many topics, the evidence is strongly suggestive of the independence of mind from brain and the reality of paranormal abilities, and our purpose is to.... I'm not putting that forward as even a draft of a statement. But I suggest that something along those lines be crafted.

And then those who join the forum would need to tick a box in which they state that they are in accord with that statement--they agree with that perspective and that purpose. What we would get as a result is a community that is not a bunch of robots, mindlessly agreeing on every detail, but a community that at least has a common starting point. It doesn't mean we think the debunkers and deniers are evil. But they have their forums already. How many do we have?

In the teacher training I was referring to earlier, that wonderful sense of accord would have been easily spoiled by just a couple of vocal people who did not agree on the basics. Such people could have easily stopped the group from really joining. My guess is that on this forum most of want a basic accord, on top of which we are then free to explore the details and undecided issues, as well as have frank discussions about how to spread our point of view in the world.

I don't think we are going to achieve the desired result just through effective moderation. The skeptics could be quite polite and considerate and the forum could be free of interpersonal conflict, yet without that sense of fundamental accord growing up. I don't know if my suggestion would work or if it's even right, but I think it's worth considering.

I like the idea but will have to think about implementation. For instance, I do not think further research needs to be done to demonstrate psi, and I'm not sure Alex does either. If there is one thing Skeptiko has demonstrated, it's that there is a lot of research already and there are no credible alternatives. This doesn't mean there aren't alternatives, but that none adequately contest the findings of psi-positive research. As I see it, proponents don't need convincing, but the podcasts make a mine of information available for them to use. For skeptics, the podcasts demonstrate pretty clearly that many of the more well-known skeptics have a poor understanding of parapsychology, and that's if they are more than glancingly familiar with the field, which most are not.

The idea of hard-hitting debate, for me anyway, is something that is appropriate for that time when an individual realizes that maybe their own beliefs have received a credible challenge and they are willing to follow it through, come what may. For me, Skeptiko is a way to understand the other side, so this is more about exploration than debate. The experience for every person here is probably different in some way meaningful to them, so trying to come up with a statement that appeals to everyone may be difficult. I do think it worth considering though, because it would make moderation easier.

Ap
 
Certainly banning everyone who doesn't agree that parapsychology has proved psi will make moderating easier!

I get that you guys believe the science is settled, but to be skeptical you have to be willing to challenge that assumption. The journal of parapsychology published that article by Kennedy this year raising methodological concerns. I've shown in my write-up of the Lancet article how one must be cautious about how we link the methods used to the conclusions raised.

I know its been popular around here to frame these concerns as nitpicking. But what if there is some legitimacy to them? Wouldn't you want to know? Isn't there something to gain by having the discussion? By really getting into the nitty gritty of these studies?

The question begs: how can we self-evaluate whether our understanding is sufficient?

There's a tendency of many posters to emphasise the big picture over the nitty gritty. I get that there's a place for that - but I think we should all be wary about using that as an excuse to not look too closely at the parts that may cause us the most trouble!
 
I like the idea but will have to think about implementation. For instance, I do not think further research needs to be done to demonstrate psi, and I'm not sure Alex does either. If there is one thing Skeptiko has demonstrated, it's that there is a lot of research already and there are no credible alternatives. This doesn't mean there aren't alternatives, but that none adequately contest the findings of psi-positive research. As I see it, proponents don't need convincing, but the podcasts make a mine of information available for them to use. For skeptics, the podcasts demonstrate pretty clearly that many of the more well-known skeptics have a poor understanding of parapsychology, and that's if they are more than glancingly familiar with the field, which most are not.

The idea of hard-hitting debate, for me anyway, is something that is appropriate for that time when an individual realizes that maybe their own beliefs have received a credible challenge and they are willing to follow it through, come what may. For me, Skeptiko is a way to understand the other side, so this is more about exploration than debate. The experience for every person here is probably different in some way meaningful to them, so trying to come up with a statement that appeals to everyone may be difficult. I do think it worth considering though, because it would make moderation easier.

Ap

Andy, please ignore the specifics of my example statement. It can be dialed toward either end, as suits the need. The idea is just to have a strong statement of what we collectively stand for which then makes those who are in the room start at a place of basic accord. I know it's an extreme move--maybe too extreme. But I'm glad you think it's worth considering.
 
Alex, I am sparky subscribed here under my real name, you banned me on the old forum.
If you do not like me posting over here, let me know, but I would like to wheig in on the subject of this thread since it has to do directly with my banning, so what do you think are you going to give me a chance to state my case?

Hello to everyone, Vortex is here! :D

I have a thought - maybe, if we now have a new forum, we could give a new chance to the previously banned members of the old one? Let's call it Forum Renovation Amnesty Act. Or let's pretend that they have achieved a kind of a virtual reincarnation, and now have a new chance to build a forum life. ;)

If this idea is not acceptable in full, here is the milder version: maybe we can accept them again, but give them a probation period of harsher moderating, and ban them again if try to repeat the bad behavior which led to their ban on the old forum?

Alex, Andy, what do you think?
 
I don't think that is going to work. I have a proponent's position and cannot imagine what would make me change it, but that doesn't mean I can't be nice about it. Arouet, though he may disagree with proponents on some things, has managed to do so within normal societal expectations, so I don't think the disagreements should be held against him or anyone else. What is more difficult to pin down is the matter of self-education. At my school, if someone doesn't follow the lessons or understand the material after a reasonable period of time, we expel them. Here, i would like to see skeptiks make an effort to understand the justifications behind the various positions aired on the podcast, but that may mean understanding Ray Hyman better than Rupert Sheldrake. I may think Hyman is a lazy thinker, but don't think that standard should be applied to forum members, particularly because some them probably have the same opinion of me and Alex.
AP
The problem with requiring homework is that conversations will deteriorate into posters assigning one another homework.

For example, if someone makes a claim that appears to violate laws of physics, I might try to assign them physics homework. But two of the common responses to such violation is that we don't yet know all of physics, or that there is some sort of immaterial physics. Am I then allowed to claim that the person didn't do his homework and bring on repercussions? I should hope not.

The other problem with homework assignments is that there is a virtually infinite number of sources. Every time I've rejected a reincarnation story, I've been told that I didn't read the best cases. I could do a similar thing to proponents regarding evolution.

~~ Paul
 
I suggest that the moderators maintain a "Suspensions and Bannings" thread in which they post every suspension and banning with reasons. The date that a suspension is lifted should be included.

~~ Paul
 
I've been thinking about maybe having a constructive way to deal with certain issues. Helps first to identify the issues.

1. Bad behaviour
2. Constantly using the same tired old responses as if somehow they're new
3. Off-topic responses: diversions
etc.

So maybe we could get together a list of specific issues in the rules section, and along with each, indicate the way to deal with them. This doesn't have to be as draconian as banning.

I don't think we want to overload mods, so if there was some way of being able to drive this without the need for their intervention, that might be better. I'll give a for instance: suppose someone is guilty of 2. Okay. Then maybe if I felt that was the case, I could post a brief message to the thread saying that issue no. 2 in the rules had been breached. We could maybe require a certain number of people to also post such a message, and if that were the case, the rules could stipulate the way to deal with the infraction. Types of action could be:

1. Requirement to stop doing it and stop responding to it. Failure to do so to be reported to a mod
2. If people want to carry on arguing the toss, requirement to do so in private conversations (akin to the PMs on the old forum, and allowing for the participation of up to 5 people [BTW, is that number fixed? can it be increased by admin?])
3. Requirement to raise a new thread with a clear indication in the title that it's contentious or whatever.

Maybe something like that would help keep threads on track but at the same time not necessitate banning: those who wanted to argue the toss could do so, but not on the main thread. All issues, in the end, boil down to what disrupts civil and relevant discourse. If people are prevented from engaging in such disruption, yet not necessarily completely muzzled, they won't have grounds to whinge and moan. It'd all be spelt out in the rules, and there'd be a way for the general membership to drive enforcement, moderators only needing to get involved if the required action weren't complied with.
 
Last edited:
I suggest that the moderators maintain a "Suspensions and Bannings" thread in which they post every suspension and banning with reasons. The date that a suspension is lifted should be included.

~~ Paul
I tried this in the old forum and didn't like the result. Too many people started arguing about the information contained there. Also, I don't think it is fair to the people who have been banned because it can become a kind of rogue's gallery. If the thread was closed after entries were made, and no threads were started on the subject, maybe, but I'd want to get a second opinion on this.

AP
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top