Psience Quest

OK, so, how about this as the addition to the rules?

Quote:Defamatory remarks and personal slurs: Are strongly discouraged, whether the subject is a forum member or not, however they will not be policed by moderators unless 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 defamation and slurs for which moderators do not take action.

I'd also suggest we append this on to the end of the section, "Non-psi-related conspiracy theories and political topics":

Quote: Wrote:Note that in these forums, moderators will not police defamatory remarks and personal slurs at all, 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.

Responding to Max_B's last to me:

(2017-09-20, 12:08 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see why not. You don't seem able to provide a clear distinction between a legitimate criticism, and an illegitimate attack (excluding serious member to member defamation)... you appear to think the example comments I gave earlier were all of the former legitimate type... whereas I don't... I think they are illegitimate, because they had nothing to do with the subject matter being discussed. But I also feel moderators shouldn't get involved in member to member spats... period. Making rules that are ill defined doesn't help anybody at all. Make rules when you need them. The community will notice an attack that warrants intervention by moderators... and members will ask for that sort action when they feel it is required. Because you've already acted in a way that interpreted comments I've made incorrectly IMO, I'd want to prevent vague rules being put in place that could also be interpreted with too much latitude by moderators. The community will ask moderators to act when it becomes necessary. I don't think that being prepared has much weight, particularly if it's just to put in place rules that are vague. Let's instead be sensible and wait, and put in place rules when they actually can deal with issues that the community feel have become a high priority.

Well, we already have a rule against personal attacks ("Heated debate is welcome, but not personal attacks"), so I'd say it's in everybody's interests to clarify when that rule applies, and when moderators should take action with respect to it, but clearly this thread is not the place to do that.

I'm OK with both additions, Laird.

We can start a separate thread if we want to discuss the whether-or-not-to-moderate-personal-attacks-and-if-so-how topic.

(2017-09-21, 05:03 AM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]I'm OK with both additions, Laird.

Super. I'll wait maybe a day to see whether there are any serious objections and if not will edit them into the rules and restore Max_B's original posts which I'd censored.

(2017-09-21, 05:03 AM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]We can start a separate thread if we want to discuss the whether-or-not-to-moderate-personal-attacks-and-if-so-how topic.

Good idea. Let's wait until we've finalised this one first though, because it would be challenging to try to follow and sum up two of these sort of threads at once (or maybe I just suck at multitasking!).

When you say forums are private Laird do you mean the contents are viewable only by logged-in members?

(2017-09-21, 04:47 AM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]I would assume so, yes. No-brainer.

Sorry, I was in a hurry and had to leave. I worded that badly. I should have said something more like, "I think this forum is completely against doxxing users."

I actually thought about that after I logged off. Sorry about that.

It is a total no-brainer.

(2017-09-21, 06:58 AM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]When you say forums are private Laird do you mean the contents are viewable only by logged-in members?

Yes, but more than that, Obiwan: that logged-in members have to actively join a particlar user group in order to view the forums. So there's a double privacy barrier: first, you have to join the forum and log in; second, you have to elect to join the relevant user group.

(2017-09-21, 06:59 AM)Doppelgänger Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, I was in a hurry and had to leave. I worded that badly. I should have said something more like, "I think this forum is completely against doxxing users."

I actually thought about that after I logged off. Sorry about that.

It is a total no-brainer.

You raise a good point though, Doppelgänger: that it might be worth us making it clear in the rules that doxxing is not acceptable and will be policed (including the deletion of revealed personal information).

(2017-09-21, 04:49 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Members should feel free to call out themselves defamation and slurs for which moderators do not take action

Not to be pedantic, but I think that should read/say, "Members should feel free to call out defamation and slurs themselves...."

(2017-09-21, 07:05 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]You raise a good point though, Doppelgänger: that it might be worth us making it clear in the rules that doxxing is not acceptable and will be policed (including the deletion of revealed personal information).

Hm, yes you are right. I know the spirit of the forum is of course against doxxing. But it wouldn't hurt to put it in the rules and make it clear that it pertains to anonymous users here (as opposed to the few here who are not anonymous), and as opposed to not linking to social media accounts or postings that people have chosen to make public or are public figures.

Sorry to open a new can of worms, haha.

I'm wondering what the policy might be for members who make claims about themselves which can't be verified or which they refuse to verify. I'm thinking, in particular, about claims of expertise, qualifications or professional standing which might be used to back up arguments but which are bogus. 

Are we saying that in such a case, if information is available to counter such claims, it would not be allowed?

I'm not offering an opinion either way - just wondering whether this needs clarification too.