This is absolutely ridiculous !! I'm not aware of what's gone on behind the scenes and I'm not blaming anyone, certainly not Ian and laird, although I have some slight differences with Laird about posting issues (copyright etc) but that's understandable.
I regard most people here as friends, including Dave and Stan. We can have disagreements, surely, without clearing off forever. The forum is already quiet enough without these two quitting for good. I can see there's issues but are they not resolvable ?
We have much more in common with each other than we have in disagreement.
(2022-01-27, 06:23 AM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]I’ve now been temporarily banned by Ninshub (acting alone)twice after disputes were ‘handled’ by him in this manner. I admit to swearing at him alone the first time and at the admin team generally the latter, my friend Laird too. It is seen as unacceptable by the admin team to do so, and I would agree, but I did so only because I felt that I was being bullied, and had no other way to express my frustration. Childish and sad - yes.
(...)
According to Laird, there are four people who together make decisions in the forum. Except Ninshub seems keen on banning me on his own, without consultation. Is this fair?
They are Laird, Ninshub ,Kamarling and Typoz.
A moderator is allowed to ban a member of his or her own accord. It's preferable to do so while discussing with the other moderator and founders, but sometimes that person isn't available and a situation occurs where there is need for some immediate action. In any event, if a ban occurs there is discussion immediately following and it's always theoretically possible to change course. I was agreeable to reduce your second and last ban from 1 week to 1 day. The first time was 1 week. These are incredibly mild in my opinion.
I don't know of any other forums I've ever frequented where 10% of the behavior you've engaged in (like saying "f - off with your pathetic rules!" in answer to a moderator asking you to curtail your behavior and bringing it in accord with the existing rules) is deemed acceptable by a forum admin or moderator, and doesn't usually follow by an outright life-time ban. There is now a long pattern on your side of unrecognized entitlement in this fashion and to judge any moderation in regards to your behaviour (which is done because that behaviour is going against the well-established and
transparent forum rules) as an impingement on your right to freedom or interpreting it as a nefarious way of censoring you and your views. You are always the victim, and the others your oppressors without just cause. The fact that are you continuing to cry out "Authoritarian!" in these latest threads seems to demonstrate there has been no introspection on your own part in these events. This despite Laird repeatedly engaging with you after the bans and through this whole psychodrama.
Also, the behaviours towards myself and others that you engaged in and that brought about my decision to ban you those two times (in part because I was the moderator that was active at the moment, and the other moderator wasn't available) were judged as unacceptable by all the other founders.
Not a moderator, but I completely support Ninshub's actions.
I'm a member of another forum that deals with a specific type of musical instrument. On that forum there are a LOT of rules and they are very strictly enforced, and yet all the members seem to be able to follow the rules and have fruitful discussions.
I don't think the rules here are difficult to understand. And I don't think they are arbitrary or in any way heavy handed. Following the rules is the price of admission. This is not a public greenway. It is a private space. There is no guarantee here to be able to use speech in any way one choses. Many sites exist that allow anyone to say anything.
Try here:
https://www.4chan.org/
An unfortunate aspect of most discussion boards (and social media) is the tendency for participants to get caught up in fights with each other. I would guess that these fights have an element of jockeying for authority.
I try not to engage in fights, and like some will withdraw for a period of time to reflect on my position and also whether there is any value in further engagement.
I do find the ignore button useful, because it is just me determining how I want to spend my time.
But there is a choice in determining what I want to ignore, versus what others might want to read.
The hidden, opt-in forums seem to causing some angst. If the forum wants to have rules prohibiting abuse and rudeness and possibly prohibited content (e.g. no holocaust denial is permitted) I would not be concerned.
However the rule change was to limit how many links to external content may be included in the content.
If there is a concern with "crap-flooding" then maybe specific rules could address this.
However if i want to present a reasoned argument for something and I am linking to content in mainstream news, then the limiting of links appears unwarranted and prevents my meaningful participation.
I find some unfortunate irony in the way that psi evidence is ignored by the mainstream and that skeptics deny there is any evidence, now in a critical area of society we see replacement of scientific process with "consensus" and scientism, and on this discussion board an unwillingness to present and discuss certain evidence.
I understand the moderation is challenging, but replacing it with an arbitrary algorithm is not progress.
Please consider removing your links rule and having guidelines specific to preventing abuse and spamming/crap-flooding.
Please also consider how discussions related to what society considers acceptable and scientific also relates to psi studies.