pls change your Avatar.Was it really that bad in the old forum? Can't you just employ that system where enough "dislikes" collapses an annoying post, thus flagging it as a problem, and then it's up to the reader if they want to open it up and read...
good idea. can you pls start. also, would be very helpful if folks could try and answer/solve their own problems (of possible) then share the learn'n. this is a pretty popular forum platform (xenforo) there's a lot of help out there.I suggest questions and comments pertaining to the look and features of the new forum be moved to a different thread, to keep this one about moderation, the rules, etc.
good idea. can you pls start. also, would be very helpful if folks could try and answer/solve their own problems (of possible) then share the learn'n. this is a pretty popular forum platform (xenforo) there's a lot of help out there.
Definitely agree with that, i was listening to podcast for a long time before i started posting on the forum.First rule - be a fan of the podcast!
Again, definitely agree, and i make no secret of the fact that i find myself on the latter end of that spectrum, stopping just before the silliness starts.Beyond that... well, there's a continuum of positions from accepting every little anomaly as evidence of psi, right through to rejecting the best possible psi studies (with some silliness at either end :) ) and we're all on that line somewhere.
thx for this Robert. I have a sense that you're onto something. Perhaps we could look at reviving something like the Skeptiko Haven, but in reverse... i.e. have a forum for "Believer versus Skeptic" debates (because there's a need for that sometimes, but keep the "Skeptiko Podcast" forum free from skeptical nincompoopery... cause you're right, it can get draining... and it's defiantly unproductive.
It was funny, but it was also sad to see that you're on that site.
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.
Ditto.
Long-time listener, first-time caller here.
Some mechanism to squelch the trolls is certainly a necessity, but I fear too many arcane rules to the forum will only hinder deeper discussions...
Sounds fine to me. I just didn't like the two day bans because that's just a weekend or a couple days you might not be online anyway.wow... three weeks seems long... especially since these topics can cause brief moments to insanity that soon pass. what do you think about 1 week?
thx for this Robert. I have a sense that you're onto something. Perhaps we could look at reviving something like the Skeptiko Haven, but in reverse... i.e. have a forum for "Believer versus Skeptic" debates (because there's a need for that sometimes, but keep the "Skeptiko Podcast" forum free from skeptical nincompoopery... cause you're right, it can get draining... and it's defiantly unproductive.
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 don't think he wants to stifle debate any more than I do, but no one wants to watch a bunch of people yelling past each other. When either side completely (or nearly completely) ignores what the other party is saying, you aren't having a debate. A real debate wouldn't bother me at all. Frankly, I think it would be refreshing.Alex, this is lifted directly from your homepage (the very first paragraph) "This podcast is a leading source for intelligent, hard-nosed skeptic vs. believer debate on science and spirituality. Each episode features lively discussion with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics."
Additionally you mention that the science is controversial at the beginning of each episode. To stifle debate on the main podcast forum would seem contrary to the very aims of the project.
I hate to say this, but please try to restrain this instinct. If you can't help yourself, and in the context it is okay, then fine. If it is your habit though, it is easy to get careless and let fly inappropriately, particularly in a forum like this where many members are rather sensitive to nuance.Expletives are acceptable, of course, correct? Most of the time I cannot write without using them...
pls change your Avatar.
But how does one figure out what is nincompoopery. For example, you suggested my write up of the Lancet article made the same error as a Michael Shermer article. However, none of the issues I raised in my post are even brought up in the Michael Shermer article.
Look Alex - the journal of parapsychology doesn't consider these issues to be nincompoopery (see the Kennedy paper as an example)- so why should you?
I don't think he wants to stifle debate any more than I do, but no one wants to watch a bunch of people yelling past each other. When either side completely (or nearly completely) ignores what the other party is saying, you aren't having a debate. A real debate wouldn't bother me at all. Frankly, I think it would be refreshing.
Let's keep in mind what Skeptiko is though, because it is much more than a place for debate, it is a place to find in one place information that is very hard to find anywhere else. The Skeptiko podcasts are something to explore. It may be that some day, an enterprising parapsychologist will go through the podcasts to study the attitudes connected to skeptical positions.
AP
Intelligent discussion of science and spirituality