Should we permit interviews on non-core subjects, esp AIDS/HIV?

I've got absolutely no problem with an interview on psiencequest with a past editor of the JSE, and there's simply no justification for even discussing it.

Hm. Well I’ve no interest in the subject personally but there’s always a justification for discussing whether to invite any particular individual to be interviewed and in so doing grant them a forum for their position  if a forum member here has raised it as an issue. Imho.

There are plenty of other places to ask people questions especially if they’ve already had airtime elsewhere. It’s certainly debatable whether he should be given an opportunity  here as far as I can see.

Don't be so silly... this forum is not a bus careering down the road with a single bus driver... the analogy is ludicrous. There is no fight. There is no reason to even discuss it. The JSE is a publication dealing with consciousness, anomalous phenomena and none mainstream articles... he's a past editor, so he gets an interview published on here, if Vortex goes to the trouble of writing one up, irrespective of what you want. We're not gonna start having votes on such clear cut issues.

I guess when you run the forum you can make that call yourself.

It's got nowt to do with what I want... it's just common sense... if I want to post an interview from anybody on psiencequest that I think is relevant, I'm not going to seek anybody's permission before I post it, and neither is anybody else. That's just how it is.

Right. I guess that depends on your judgement  about what you’re posting really. If you were to start posting things that people found sufficiently objectionable, then I don’t think you’d be surprised to see your activities curtailed. Or maybe you would.

This isn’t the same as someone merely enquiring about a subject but seems to me to be about giving a platform to someone whose views are seen, by some, as damaging.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable for someone to object to any potential interviewee on here and for there to be a discussion. Given there are probably quite a lot of contentious issues out there and people who might reasonably be denied a platform here, it seems to me considerate and sensitive to ask how it would be received by members. 

It might indeed result in a vote on the matter if it is seen as sufficiently contentious.

Common sense would be to show a bit of sensitivity to the genuine concerns of other people here instead of deciding that one’s own view is the end of the matter.

[Ninshub]

I'd like to mention that in a previous discussion between the founders of the forum, I had laid out the 3 principles that seemed to guide the idea to create this forum and therefore could be said to define its "mission". These reflected the motivations of the founders of the forum, as well as what we saw as motivating people having left (or been banned) from Skeptiko and who wanted to join the new forum (with different founders and forum members valuing one of these motivations more than the others, or one or more but not another). 

These were:
a) a Skeptiko-like forum but with a more democratic forum-running and moderation philosophy
b) a more psi-oriented forum
c) a forum free from politics and non-psi conspiracy theories

The decision to create hidden sub-forums inside Other Stuff to discuss CTs and politics seems like a compromise that respects C and at the same allows forum members who are interested in discussing these topics to be able to do so.

I think interviews conducted under the banner of Psience Quest should reflect this "mission". In that spirit, I don't consider interviews that aren't related to psi (for a definition of what psi includes, see the subforum categories in the Extended Consciousness Phenomena Forum) to fall under that banner.

A subforum was created for Alternative Views on Science in the Related Topics forum to accommodate people who, carrying over from the Skeptiko forum, like to discuss those topics, but in my view they fall slightly outside the main (psi) purview of the forum.

Also, many Skeptiko-like topics like AIDS-HIV risk running into the conspiracy theory and/or politics categories. It would not make sense for such interviews to be in the main forum.

I think members should be free to do interviews with whoever they want and post them in the appropriate forum categories, but only interviews reflecting the core Psience Quest identity be allowed to carry that banner.

[Ninshub]

Maybe someone needs to lay out a definition of psi for me then.  I don't know where 9/11, Greys, and the rest of the wide range of topics so far discussed fit under that umbrella.

As I just posted, I think the Extended Consciousness Phenomena forum categories define what "psi" includes when it comes to the PQ forum.

Do we know if the interview is going to center on his HIV work? Or is it about larger psi subjects?

I would generally be against this sort of thing, just because I think for any lurkers it would potentially paint PQ in a pretty negative light. I see what Max is saying about why it ought to be allowed, though, and I also am amenable to Linda's approach, because it would be interesting to see how he responded to certain questions.

I would lean the direction that in my opinion it would be a bad idea, but I can understand why it might be allowed.