227. Continued... continued... feedback on new forum

C

chuck.drake

MOD+ can only currently be added to new threads in the BvS forum. Can you change it so we can add that tag in the other forums as well? Thanks!
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
Clarification needed (from the moderators).

In the forum rules section, Alex added this:

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.
What this doesn't spell out is what happens to threads that aren't
but that are not in the BvS forum - i.e. the Consciousness & Science, and Extended Consciousness & Spirituality sub-forums. Are members coming in with a prove-it-all-from-the-ground-up perspective encouraged/allowed to post in these forums, or not? Or are they allowed/encouraged only if assuming "psi is real" or something akin to that?

Or in other words:
- Statement A (the first paragraph) implies "skeptics" (for lack of a more precise definition) should stay away from non-materialist-exclusive
threads, and therefore are potentially welcome in threads not so designed, which includes forum sections outside of the BvS forum.
- Statement B (the second paragraph) implies "skeptics" should stick to the BvS forum.
There seems to be a contradiction there.

Conflict because of this confusion is already showing up. See here in the "Do We Create What We See" thread, for example:
http://www.skeptiko.com/forum/threads/do-we-create-what-we-see.163/page-6#post-2703
Paul: I thought the rule was that Mod+ threads require mind /= brain. Anyway, I'm happy to wear a different hat if you'll explain what I'm to assume.
http://www.skeptiko.com/forum/threads/do-we-create-what-we-see.163/page-6#post-2745
Jules: I thought skeptical debate was confined to that forum but for reference if I start a thread take it as a given.

Thanks in advance for (hopefully crystal clear ;)) replies, Andy and Alex.
 
Last edited:
Clarification needed (from the moderators).

In the forum rules section, Alex added this:



What this doesn't spell out is what happens to threads that aren't
but that are not in the BvS forum - i.e. the Consciousness & Science, and Extended Consciousness & Spirituality sub-forums. Are members coming in with a prove-it-all-from-the-ground-up perspective encouraged/allowed to post in these forums, or not? Or are they allowed/encouraged only if assuming "psi is real" or something akin to that?

Or in other words:
- Statement A (the first paragraph) implies "skeptics" (for lack of a more precise definition) should stay away from non-materialist-exclusive
threads, and therefore are potentially welcome in threads not so designed, which includes forum sections outside of the BvS forum.
- Statement B (the second paragraph) implies "skeptics" should stick to the BvS forum.
There seems to be a contradiction there.

Conflict because of this confusion is already showing up. See here in the "Do We Create What We See" thread, for example:
http://www.skeptiko.com/forum/threads/do-we-create-what-we-see.163/page-6#post-2703

Thanks in advance for (hopefully crystal clear ;)) replies, Andy and Alex.
I've noticed this a couple of times already and moved the threads because of it. I think the issue is to put the threads in the right forum, or put it there after the fact if appropriate.

Best regards,

AP
 
TOR makes it impossible to ban IP addresses, which is necessary for getting rid of trolls. The best thing your friend can do is to either use someone else's computer who won't mind being traced, or get a cheap computer to use just for this purpose and keep all personal information off of it and get an anonymous hotmail email account to register. It will be possible to trace this person to the general area in which they live, but not to them specifically except by court order depending on their nation's laws.
The likelihood of disruptive "trolls" on this site is slime to none. At the approach of turning away anyone who likes strict privacy based on such a possibility is limiting and silly. There are many people (e.g. a researcher in a trad org - someone with "leaked" info) that won't post because of the draconian approach and the "community" as a a whole suffers from that.
 
I think the disagree option is counter-productive. Rather than post their own point of view some people just click "disagree"
I would say that it isn't the fault of the disagree option but of the poster who doesn't provide a reason. Even then, I don't think it is so onerous. This is a way to provide feedback, clear feedback, from other readers. Posts that are more wordy can hide the most salient element of the criticism: disagreement. By not providing details, there is nothing to argue against, thus preventing to an extent thread derailment.

AP
 
The likelihood of disruptive "trolls" on this site is slime to none. At the approach of turning away anyone who likes strict privacy based on such a possibility is limiting and silly. There are many people (e.g. a researcher in a trad org - someone with "leaked" info) that won't post because of the draconian approach and the "community" as a a whole suffers from that.
We had at least half a dozen TOR trolls on the last site. They are out there, but that avenue of entry is closed.

AP
 
The likelihood of disruptive "trolls" on this site is slime to none. At the approach of turning away anyone who likes strict privacy based on such a possibility is limiting and silly. There are many people (e.g. a researcher in a trad org - someone with "leaked" info) that won't post because of the draconian approach and the "community" as a a whole suffers from that.
Another great example of why the disagree button is an obstacle. Someone just did a disagree with this post. Yet they have had to offer no sound reasoning as to what their thinking is. And there's no way to disagree with the disagree,
 
I would say that it isn't the fault of the disagree option but of the poster who doesn't provide a reason. Even then, I don't think it is so onerous. This is a way to provide feedback, clear feedback, from other readers. Posts that are more wordy can hide the most salient element of the criticism: disagreement. By not providing details, there is nothing to argue against, thus preventing to an extent thread derailment.

AP
It's not feedback . it's nonsense. Lazy, ignorant nonsense. A poster who can't or won't write a reason for their disagreement and/or share their perspective is offering nothing and a mechanism to allow.encourage is of no benefit to a discourse based community. These are discussions, not polls.
 
We had at least half a dozen TOR trolls on the last site. They are out there, but that avenue of entry is closed.

AP
Whoa .. . half-a -dozen?? Shockers!! Leaving aside what it is that you deem a "troll" if dealing with 6 (IMD) "trolls" seems like a big deal, I can only assume you haven't done admin many sizable forums.

As for closing avenues of entry. Sure but you miss the point. You can build yourself a bunker underground and live there. Mostly likely you'll be safe from any chance of getting mugged but you'll also miss out on a lot of things of values. The approach to TOR you're taking is no different. Well, except that there are other people who will also miss out - at least on here. Thing less about *what* you want and consider the big picture. Okay you've managed to spite your face - but where's your nose?
 
Whoa .. . half-a -dozen?? Shockers!! Leaving aside what it is that you deem a "troll" if dealing with 6 (IMD) "trolls" seems like a big deal, I can only assume you haven't done admin many sizable forums.

As for closing avenues of entry. Sure but you miss the point. You can build yourself a bunker underground and live there. Mostly likely you'll be safe from any chance of getting mugged but you'll also miss out on a lot of things of values. The approach to TOR you're taking is no different. Well, except that there are other people who will also miss out - at least on here. Thing less about *what* you want and consider the big picture. Okay you've managed to spite your face - but where's your nose?
Saiko, if you could cool the rhetoric it will be appreciated. The "half a dozen" trolls in the last site were responsible for a total of many dozens of sock puppet accounts and were responsible for seriously disrupting the site. If other forums have so many more of these creatures than we did, I feel sorry for them. However, this is how we deal with it. No TOR accounts. If you can't live with that, maybe this isn't the place for you.

AP
 
It's not feedback . it's nonsense. Lazy, ignorant nonsense. A poster who can't or won't write a reason for their disagreement and/or share their perspective is offering nothing and a mechanism to allow.encourage is of no benefit to a discourse based community. These are discussions, not polls.
If you don't like it, make your own forum. Life is too short to waste it arguing about things like this. That goes for me and you. Your opinion has been expressed so now you can be satisfied that you said it, but that's as far as this goes.

AP
 
Whoa .. . half-a -dozen?? Shockers!! Leaving aside what it is that you deem a "troll" if dealing with 6 (IMD) "trolls" seems like a big deal, I can only assume you haven't done admin many sizable forums.

As for closing avenues of entry. Sure but you miss the point. You can build yourself a bunker underground and live there. Mostly likely you'll be safe from any chance of getting mugged but you'll also miss out on a lot of things of values. The approach to TOR you're taking is no different. Well, except that there are other people who will also miss out - at least on here. Thing less about *what* you want and consider the big picture. Okay you've managed to spite your face - but where's your nose?
No one else but the trolls used TOR. When it was removed, the forum had far fewer of their kind and the ones we did have haven't been back in the same way.
 
Is there a way that a user can set their profile to default to not receive emails on threads where they posted a reply?

If I go into <more options> then I can turn off watch and email on individual reply. But if possible it would nice to set this preference once for the whole discussion board.
 

Alex

Administrator
I would say that it isn't the fault of the disagree option but of the poster who doesn't provide a reason. Even then, I don't think it is so onerous. This is a way to provide feedback, clear feedback, from other readers. Posts that are more wordy can hide the most salient element of the criticism: disagreement. By not providing details, there is nothing to argue against, thus preventing to an extent thread derailment.

AP
I agree Andy. For example, I was away from the forum for a few days and wanting to catch-up. The agree/disagree buttons gave me a quick way to jump back into this thread without bumping topics that have already been covered days ago. And as the likes pile up those posts move to the featured posts section.
 
If you don't like it, make your own forum. Life is too short to waste it arguing about things like this. That goes for me and you. Your opinion has been expressed so now you can be satisfied that you said it, but that's as far as this goes.

AP
Man .please. I'll express my opinion as often as I please. You don't want to argue - then don't. If my opinions bug you too much, then of course you can ban me. That would seem to be in line with your approach to what you no doubt view as "hearty debate."
 
No one else but the trolls used TOR. When it was removed, the forum had far fewer of their kind and the ones we did have haven't been back in the same way.
What exactly do you consider a "troll"? I sometimes voice opinions in to-the-point, not particularly polite ways. I've already had a couple vehement disagreements with one admin. Does that make me a troll in your view?
 
What exactly do you consider a "troll"? I sometimes voice opinions in to-the-point, not particularly polite ways. I've already had a couple vehement disagreements with one admin. Does that make me a troll in your view?
The trolls I'm referring to have used sockpuppets, impersonated long term members and driven them away, used insulting language and behaved in a hostile manner.

It's not just skeptics I'm talking about either . . . we've encountered them on both sides, but the very worst one was a proponent.
 
Top