(2017-09-17, 08:17 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Has this thread come to any conclusion yet?
Close to it, but not yet. I was hoping that Ian would get the chance to read through it and offer his view as he suggested he might - since he drafted the existing rules - and then we could put forward a specific proposed policy which could be critiqued and modified or accepted as-is. Perhaps, though, Ian doesn't have the time to do that. I'll ping him privately.
My general stance is to risk erring on the side of overzealous liberalism re: moderation.
So that the type of post Max B made regarding Radin would be left to forum members to challenge, and not for moderators to act on. I am in agreement, however, with not allowing IMO more grievous, unsubstantiated allegations of sex crimes, paedophilia, etc.
When it comes to forum members making accusations against other forum members, rather than public figures, however, I think the rules should be a bit stricter - just meaning that most of those accusations would fall under the category of personal attacks and breaking the established rule of engaging in a minimum of respect towards other participants. (Not that the slightest failure here should have to be subject to heavy moderation - arguments and verbal fights will necessarily go over the boundaries a bit, i.e. this is an internet forum -, but that excessive lack of respect and flagrant personal attacks, the kind you find in Youtube comments, would be subject to administrative action.)
Nice, thanks, Ian. Based on the discussion so far, I've drafted a potential addition to the rules which I'll share here. I hope folks will speak up if they have any criticisms:
Quote:Defamatory remarks and personal slurs: Are strongly discouraged, however they will not be policed by moderators, with two exceptions: (1) The subject is a forum member, in which case they are considered to be a form of personal attack as described above, and, (2) They are extremely grievious or offensive, e.g., unsubstantiated accusations of paedophilia or other sex crimes.
In particular, accusations of fraud or incompetence against researchers are tolerated in the interests of furthering critical debate - members should feel free to call out themselves such accusations where unjustified because moderators will not, in their capacity as moderators, take action on such accusations (though they may call out such accusations in their capacity as ordinary members).
I'd also suggest we append this on to the end of the section, "Non-psi-related conspiracy theories and political topics":
Quote:Note that in these forums, moderators will be even more lenient with respect to potentially defamatory posts about public figures than in the main forums, for two reasons: (1) the forums are private, and, (2) the nature of these forums is in part to criticise public figures, and to police such criticism would be to frustrate the discussions.
(2017-09-18, 01:29 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I think the issue between members is stickier... for instance your post to me on another thread suggesting that I suck... or Typoz's later remark that I'm a self harmer... or Roberta's past verbal tirades... none of which contained any substance to do with the discussion at hand might be construed a similar a problem which falls under these rules...
But my point is they shouldn't fall under these rules... and I'd want to retain the right to post in the same way, without moderator's getting involved in spats between members. Only the more serious sorts of claims "your a rapist" etc should really be considered by moderators.
I'm sympathetic to this.
This is maybe a separate issue, and a possible rethinking of the Respect rule, or of its application. I think it's a complicated one. Because I agree that the examples you gave could all fall under the category of personal attacks - that's why personally I've tried to steer away of giving any Likes to such statements -, but on the other hand I don't judge them serious enough for moderators to act upon, and I also wouldn't want moderators to step in to settle spats, just let them rise and fall by themselves.
On the other hand, if members start engaging in name-calling, for example ("you're an asshole"),
especially outside the context of a fight ("people shouldn't mind Max B, he's an asshole" - which I don't think Max, by the way
)) shouldn't be tolerated if it gets above a certain level.
(2017-09-17, 05:01 PM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]When it comes to forum members making accusations against other forum members, rather than public figures, however, I think the rules should be a bit stricter - just meaning that most of those accusations would fall under the category of personal attacks and breaking the established rule of engaging in a minimum of respect towards other participants. (Not that the slightest failure here should have to be subject to heavy moderation - arguments and verbal fights will necessarily go over the boundaries a bit, i.e. this is an internet forum -, but that excessive lack of respect and flagrant personal attacks, the kind you find in Youtube comments, would be subject to administrative action.)
I would just say that, human nature being what it is, sometimes people post things they know aren't true, and it's probably not a good idea to let them do that and at the same time to prevent other people from saying they think that's what's happening.
I can't see that abuse and name-calling serve any useful purpose but, as you say, these things tend to happen during the course of heated arguments, and probably an occasional comment will be enough to remind people they shouldn't go too far.
(2017-09-18, 01:29 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I think the issue between members is stickier... for instance your post to me on another thread suggesting that I suck... or Typoz's later remark that I'm a self harmer... or Roberta's past verbal tirades... none of which contained any substance to do with the discussion at hand might be construed a similar a problem which falls under these rules...
But my point is they shouldn't fall under these rules... and I'd want to retain the right to post in the same way, without moderator's getting involved in spats between members. Only the more serious sorts of claims "your a rapist" etc should really be considered by moderators.
I agree, these types of posts shouldn't fall under these rules - and they don't. None of them were either defamation (defamation requires that the posts be based on falsehoods, which they weren't) or attacks (they were legitimate criticisms, not illegitimate attacks).
The sort of post that would fall under these rules is this: "Max_B has a mental illness, borderline personality disorder, which causes him to lie pathologically. You can't believe anything he says". That would qualify because (1) it is untrue and (2) it is unsubstantiated.
So, now that we've cleared that up, tell me: do you feel that that sort of defamation of members on the forum ought to be policed by moderators or not?
(By the way, I didn't say you sucked, I said the dynamic I described sucked for members of the forum. I don't think you suck, I think you're a good guy.)
(2017-09-19, 08:58 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Defamation between members is a *bit* easier... but it really needs to be serious for a moderator to get involved. If somebody posted somebody's true identity, and said they were a rapist... that's serious... it leaves this forum, and can go out into the world.
How about the example I gave of somebody accusing you of having a mental illness which turned you into a pathological liar? Should that be policed? That's also serious and can go out into the world.
(2017-09-19, 08:58 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]But also on member to member claims. You claimed that I had made a statement about Radin which you felt was a serious accusation, and stated that my statement was a fact, and asked me to withdraw it. When I would not, you removed sections of my posts. But your claim about what I said remains there for all to see, as a fact. But that claim as a fact, is actually untrue. Further, the removal of my statements prevents me from defending myself, as you've removed the evidence I would need to do so. So it's game set and match to you, and that issue was a member to member issue as far as I'm concerned... Laird vs Max_B...
OK, but that occurred before the discussion in this thread. If it were to happen again, I wouldn't take that action, because I think the caveat about criticism of researchers being allowed would trump the fact that Dean's a member of this forum - he essentially just dropped in once or twice and then left. Perhaps we ought to tweak the rules to make it clear that that sort of potentially defamatory criticism of researchers is not to be policed by moderators even if the researcher is a member of the forum (assuming that there's general agreement on that).
I've also told you that if the consensus turns out to be that claims like those you made of Dean should be allowed, then I'll restore your posts as they were before I edited them. So far that seems likely.
(2017-09-19, 08:58 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]You're now suggesting that you *can* make the right decision between members. However, due to my experience above, until you can get greater clarity on the definition, and the distinction between an attack - 'a legitimate criticism', and an attack - 'illegitimate attack' I don't think moderators should get involved in spats between members... legitimate vs illegitimate seems pretty vague, and open to all sorts of interpretation. And I already have ample evidence that you can make errors in your interpretation.
I think we agree that there is a line somewhere though. If a member were to follow you around every thread you post in swearing at you and/or belligerently calling you names rather than addressing your points/arguments, then a moderator should step in. That's quite obviously an illegitimate attack. Whereas if somebody says something like "I think you made a mistake there, you really should reconsider", then that's legitimate criticism. So, if you want to help to make the distinction clearer, so we know exactly where the line is drawn, then please do that. But in any case, we're committed as moderators going forward to being as liberal as we can - my intervention re your remarks on Dean Radin does not reflect the way we (and I) will approach things going forward.
(2017-09-20, 08:21 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]This thread was about defamation... and it looks like that is not going to get acted upon by moderators for researchers and others in the public eye. But I can see it needs actioning for members for serious incidents, like "your a rapist", but they have to be serious. But honestly this issue came up due to my comments on Radin... and that's where it should end.
I'm thinking now that we remove the distinction between members and non-members, so that moderators only take action on serious defamation (unsubstantiated allegations of sex crimes, mental illness, etc), and ignore allegations of researcher fraud or incompetence,
regardless of whether or not the target/researcher is a member of the forum.
(2017-09-20, 08:21 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]When you get issues come up about attacks on members by members (not serious defamation), I'm sure you can look at this issue again, but I've never seen any, and dont really expect to. Because you can't define attacks ( legitimate vs illegitimate), I think moderators should leave well alone.
But we can define the difference - and I did to some extent in my last post (i.e. somebody following you around every thread cursing at you and calling you names versus somebody saying, "I think you made a mistake there, maybe reconsider?"). I would strongly argue that we ought not to leave the former situation alone. If you want to help contribute to a more nuanced distinction then I'm very open to it.
(2017-09-20, 08:21 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Instead. Just stick to updating the PSI rules for defamation. My comments on Radin raised an issue, you asked for feedback on that issue, and leave it there. Trying to deal with hypothetical member on member attacks at the same time, without any clear definition, doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. Just leave this out until it comes up on PSI, then raise a thread where the behaviour/comments in question can be discussed (like this one), and a desision can be reached again.
Fair enough - moderation policy on personal attacks is beyond the scope of this thread, which is about moderation policy on defamation. That said, I don't think we should leave that discussion until an actionable case comes up - better to be prepared in advance.
(2017-09-20, 04:58 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]I think we agree that there is a line somewhere though. If a member were to follow you around every thread you post in swearing at you and/or belligerently calling you names rather than addressing your points/arguments, then a moderator should step in.
Maybe this should be discussed a bit, because that's the situation with tim. I've noticed he shows up in threads I'm participating in to post derogatory and defamatory statements directed at me. And I noticed he has posted false statements about what I've said or done in other areas of the forum where I'm not participating. I don't know how much of this is going on, as I have him on ignore now. My intention was not to ask for moderation unless it began to disrupt discussion. Do we really think a moderator should step in regardless? And isn't tim going to claim his actions are legitimate?
Linda
(2017-09-20, 01:33 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe this should be discussed a bit, because that's the situation with tim. I've noticed he shows up in threads I'm participating in to post derogatory and defamatory statements directed at me. And I noticed he has posted false statements about what I've said or done in other areas of the forum where I'm not participating. I don't know how much of this is going on, as I have him on ignore now. My intention was not to ask for moderation unless it began to disrupt discussion. Do we really think a moderator should step in regardless? And isn't tim going to claim his actions are legitimate?
Linda
"I've noticed he shows up in threads I'm participating in to post derogatory and defamatory statements directed at me. And I noticed he has posted false statements about what I've said or done in other areas of the forum where I'm not participating."
By all means, kindly reproduce them, Linda ! The only remark I made about you was (previous to the post I just made because it made me so angry to see you making false statements about cardiac arrest) that you are a master of obfuscation.
This statement has been made by Alex Tsakiris several times and was one of the reasons you were banned from Skeptiko.