Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forum Rules and Guidelines Discussion
#1
New, more official forum rules have been posted. Feel free to post comments, questions, etc., here.

The moderation policy is currently being discussed. Again, if anyone wants to discuss that specifically, you input here is very welcome.
Reply
#2
(08-22-2017, 02:58 AM)Ninshub Wrote: New, more official forum rules have been posted. Feel free to post comments, questions, etc., here.

The moderation policy is currently being discussed. Again, if anyone wants to discuss that specifically, you input here is very welcome.

Just to check I understand - if someone posted details of a precognition experiment (for example) in "Psi Phenomena", and I wanted to say that particular experiment was rubbish, that would be allowed, but if I wanted to say precognition in general was impossible or didn't exist, that should go into Skeptic v Proponent?
Reply
#3
(08-22-2017, 07:41 AM)Chris Wrote: Just to check I understand - if someone posted details of a precognition experiment (for example) in "Psi Phenomena", and I wanted to say that particular experiment was rubbish, that would be allowed, but if I wanted to say precognition in general was impossible or didn't exist, that should go into Skeptic v Proponent?

Yes and yes.

The prior acceptance of psi phenomena (in your suggested case, ESP) as anomalous* would be required in order to post critical comments in the Psi Phenomena forum. Barring prior acceptance, comments should be posted in the Skeptic v Proponent forum.

*anomalous = unexplained by our current scientific understanding.


Edit: My memory of the current rules has been refreshed. Please read my new position on the matter here:

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-15...ml#pid1209
Reply
#4
(08-22-2017, 08:05 AM)Doug Wrote: Yes and yes.

The prior acceptance of psi phenomena (in your suggested case, ESP) as real would be required in order to post critical comments in the Psi Phenomena forum. Barring prior acceptance, comments should be posted in the Skeptic v Proponent forum.

Not wanting to start another controversy over policy, but I'd suggest an open mind should be enough, rather than "prior acceptance ... as real". In fact, if it were up to me, I would avoid criteria based on what people believe, and just say the critical comments have to arise directly out of the circumstances of the case under discussion, rather than from general considerations. At least I'd give that a try before imposing something more restrictive. As it stands, a non-believer could spot a fatal flaw that other people had missed, and s/he wouldn't be able to tell anyone! (Or s/he'd have to start a second thread in another part of the forum.)
[-] The following 1 user Likes Chris's post:
  • Obiwan
Reply
#5
(08-22-2017, 08:22 AM)Chris Wrote: Not wanting to start another controversy over policy, but I'd suggest an open mind should be enough, rather than "prior acceptance ... as real". In fact, if it were up to me, I would avoid criteria based on what people believe, and just say the critical comments have to arise directly out of the circumstances of the case under discussion, rather than from general considerations. At least I'd give that a try before imposing something more restrictive.

It's fair to suggest an open mind should be enough to engage critically in any of the Extended Consciousness Phenomena forums. However, I'll bet nearly every opponent of psi phenomena who ever repeatedly disrupted psi/NDE discussions considered him/herself open minded. For now, let them voice their criticisms of individual cases under discussion in the Skeptics v Proponents forum.


Quote:As it stands, a non-believer could spot a fatal flaw that other people had missed, and s/he wouldn't be able to tell anyone! (Or s/he'd have to start a second thread in another part of the forum.)

We already have some proponents (and will doubtless attract more) who can spot fatal flaws others have missed. You're one of them. I'm counting on you to do a great job in that respect. Smile
Reply
#6
(08-22-2017, 08:47 AM)Doug Wrote: We already have some proponents, and will doubtless attract more, who can spot fatal flaws others have missed. You're one of them.

My problem is that I think of myself as somewhere in the middle rather than a sceptic or a proponent. On ESP/PK I lean towards pro. But in other areas such as NDEs I don't even even lean towards pro, and on reincarnation I lean towards anti. I don't think I'd say about any of it that "I accept it as real" without qualification. 

However, I think on the current draft rules I can probably squeak into the general forum for criticism of particular cases, because it's not true that I "[do] not accept the anomalous nature of any of the various phenomena".

Anyhow, I just thought I'd raise that point, as you were inviting discussion.
Reply
#7
(08-22-2017, 08:56 AM)Chris Wrote: My problem is that I think of myself as somewhere in the middle rather than a sceptic or a proponent. On ESP/PK I lean towards pro. But in other areas such as NDEs I don't even even lean towards pro, and on reincarnation I lean towards anti. I don't think I'd say about any of it that "I accept it as real" without qualification.

(Please note I edited my post to read "accept as anomalous" instead of "accept as real", and added my off-the-top definition of "anomalous" at the bottom.)

I understand that acceptance of any phenomenon as anomalous is nuanced, and that acceptance encompasses a wide range of views. However, I'd like to resist splitting hairs in the matter.


Quote:Anyhow, I just thought I'd raise that point, as you were inviting discussion.

Thanks for doing so, and my apologies if you're not satisfied with my answers.
Reply
#8
(08-22-2017, 09:21 AM)Doug Wrote: (Please note I edited my post to read "accept as anomalous" instead of "accept as real", and added my off-the-top definition of "anomalous" at the bottom.)

I understand that acceptance of any phenomenon as anomalous is nuanced, and that acceptance encompasses a wide range of views. However, I'd like to resist splitting hairs in the matter.



Thanks for doing so, and my apologies if you're not satisfied with my answers.

No complaint about your answers, though I think it would probably be more accurate to describe it as nit-picking rather than hair-splitting.  Wink
[-] The following 1 user Likes Chris's post:
  • Doug
Reply
#9
(08-22-2017, 09:21 AM)Doug Wrote: (Please note I edited my post to read "accept as anomalous" instead of "accept as real", and added my off-the-top definition of "anomalous" at the bottom.)

I understand that acceptance of any phenomenon as anomalous is nuanced, and that acceptance encompasses a wide range of views. However, I'd like to resist splitting hairs in the matter.



Thanks for doing so, and my apologies if you're not satisfied with my answers.

I think you may have to put a bit more thought into this, as the dividing line over who you want posting in "Psi Phenomena" or not falls between Chris and me. Yet there is no useful distinction between us in terms of "accept as anomalous", just like Maaneli's statements about his beliefs were pretty much identical to mine (yet he was welcome everywhere). The only difference I can see is that my perspective comes from an evidence-based approach (informed by Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM)), which by and large is somewhat different from the criticism which proponents are used to seeing, dismissing, and finding ready "response to criticisms" for (even though almost everything I said was also said by proponent researchers). Your suggested guidelines are exactly what I followed on Skeptiko, but I suspect would lead to the same kinds of problems if I follow them here.

One solution is to accept that the smooth running of the forum requires a bit of unfairness and simply tell certain posters, such as myself, not to post in the "Extended Consciousness" section, on an ad hoc basis. I don't know if this will work. The problems which arose on Skeptiko weren't because I drifted into proponent sections.

Linda
Reply
#10
(08-22-2017, 11:47 AM)fls Wrote: I think you may have to put a bit more thought into this, as the dividing line over who you want posting in "Psi Phenomena" or not falls between Chris and me. Yet there is no useful distinction between us in terms of "accept as anomalous", just like Maaneli's statements about his beliefs were pretty much identical to mine (yet he was welcome everywhere). The only difference I can see is that my perspective comes from an evidence-based approach (informed by Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM)), which by and large is somewhat different from the criticism which proponents are used to seeing, dismissing, and finding ready "response to criticisms" for (even though almost everything I said was also said by proponent researchers). Your suggested guidelines are exactly what I followed on Skeptiko, but I suspect would lead to the same kinds of problems if I follow them here.

One solution is to accept that the smooth running of the forum requires a bit of unfairness and simply tell certain posters, such as myself, not to post in the "Extended Consciousness" section, on an ad hoc basis. I don't know if this will work. The problems which arose on Skeptiko weren't because I drifted into proponent sections.

Linda
I agree that the problems weren't caused by skeptics drifting into proponent sections. However I do think a lot of problems were caused by uneven, random and opaque moderation.
It is my hope (and confidence) that the big difference between here and 'the other place' will be open transparent moderation. Many posters (not just skeptics) had to be very careful how they presented their views on Skeptiko, even in the CD forum. Dancing around Alex, AP, and David became an Olympic sport in which some of us had to get our message over between the lines.
(Remember, when you received your permanent ban, David had specifically asked you to comment on something in the CD forum and, after you did so, he banned you). 

There appears to be a lot of good will on all 'sides' for this project, and to some extent we're just going to have to see how it goes, but the governance of the forum appears to be in good hands.
[-] The following 3 users Like malf's post:
  • E. Flowers, Doppelgänger, Doug
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)