Free speech is the right to shout theatre in a crowded fire. Abbie Hoffman.
While the above might not lead to ideal forum moderation, I would suggest that humor and perhaps absurdisum. Can be useful tools.
I'd be in favor of allowing almost everything to remain, and to police the forum almost not at all. The only exceptions I'd make are for hate speech directed at groups or individuals, and obvious trolling. I wouldn't even consider removing Max's posts. He's obviously very interested in this stuff and willing to engage with arguments. I feel like the posts were removed because the scientists showed up and it made the forum look bad, but the scientists are adults, too, and I'm sure they've seen it all before...whether it influences their future participation is to be seen, but I agree with Max that it's a slippery slope when you start editing the content, especially when the offending party is more than willing to defend his words.
(2017-09-07, 04:40 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think this is an easy question at all. It would make discussions very difficult if someone is not allowed to say, for example, "I think Uri Geller faked those results", without being able to prove it.
(2017-09-08, 04:37 AM)berkelon Wrote: [ -> ]I'd be in favor of allowing almost everything to remain, and to police the forum almost not at all. The only exceptions I'd make are for hate speech directed at groups or individuals, and obvious trolling. I wouldn't even consider removing Max's posts. He's obviously very interested in this stuff and willing to engage with arguments. I feel like the posts were removed because the scientists showed up and it made the forum look bad, but the scientists are adults, too, and I'm sure they've seen it all before...whether it influences their future participation is to be seen, but I agree with Max that it's a slippery slope when you start editing the content, especially when the offending party is more than willing to defend his words.
Thank you, Chris and berkelon, for providing contrasting posts (to the idea of policing defamation) that make us think. This progresses the conversation.
Please let me probe a little:
Chris, what do you think of the idea that if somebody has no proof, they ought not to say "I think Uri Geller cheated" in the first place? Is this way too draconian or is it being fair to Uri? Does it matter whether the claim is couched in the language of opinion and possibility rather than outright assertion?
Chris and berkelon: what would your reaction be if somebody defamed
you in a thread on this forum? e.g. somebody says: Chris is not a real mathematician, he flunked out of his degree, and has been fired by every employer he's worked for? Or somebody says something similar for you, berkelon (I don't know enough about you to construct an equally personally defamatory statement)? Would you want that person to retract their statements? Would you want a moderator to force them to do that? Or would it be enough that you had the opportunity to set the record straight and dismiss their claims personally? What if, despite your best arguments to show that the defamatory statements were false, the claims were repeated again and again?
(2017-09-08, 05:08 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you, Chris and berkelon, for providing contrasting posts (to the idea of policing defamation) that make us think. This progresses the conversation.
Please let me probe a little:
Chris, what do you think of the idea that if somebody has no proof, they ought not to say "I think Uri Geller cheated" in the first place? Is this way too draconian or is it being fair to Uri? Does it matter whether the claim is couched in the language of opinion and possibility rather than outright assertion?
Chris and berkelon: what would your reaction be if somebody defamed you in a thread on this forum? e.g. somebody says: Chris is not a real mathematician, he flunked out of his degree, and has been fired by every employer he's worked for? Or somebody says something similar for you, berkelon (I don't know enough about you to construct an equally personally defamatory statement)? Would you want that person to retract their statements? Would you want a moderator to force them to do that? Or would it be enough that you had the opportunity to set the record straight and dismiss their claims personally? What if, despite your best arguments to show that the defamatory statements were false, the claims were repeated again and again?
Well, before I came to the thread I had assumed the site owners
would be legally responsible for what's on the site, at least if something had been brought to their attention. So I was ready to say "Of course the site owners have to be able to protect themselves by removing defamatory material." And that seems reasonable to me anyway.
But I still think it is obviously very difficult to discuss parapsychology without allowing people to say they think cheating has occurred, even if they have only reasons for suspicion rather than proof. I'm afraid I don't have the answer to the difficulty, but I think part of it would have to be taking into account the circumstances of each case rather than applying an inflexible rule. For example, mathematicians should obviously be given more protection than professional psychics
. (How did you find out all that stuff about me, anyway?)
Seriously, I think the possibility of cheating or fraud in faking paranormal phenomena probably should be treated differently from other kinds of defamation (such as sex offences and so on). And perhaps when it comes to such cheating the line could be drawn between stating it as an opinion and stating it as a fact if it's unproven. But that would probably leave you with difficult decisions, because sceptics often claim fraud has been proven when proponents don't accept that it has.
Also, there's the question of whether it's OK to defame dead people. The law gives them no protection, which seems a bit unfair. But in historical cases often proof can't be expected.
I think that Dean acted graciously despite being unfamiliar with Max's supernatural stubbornness... But will the next one be as kind? At the very least, even if consensus leads to keeping this kind of comment, the administration should include a disclaimer to avoid getting dragged into a libel action (which 'weak' or not, always ends with money being wasted).
From a legal standpoint (get me Arouet), what would manipulating data to benefit your employer be classified as? Because whatever it is, that's what Max implied.
(2017-09-08, 08:13 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]You've got to admit when you've over reacted, and made a wrong decision. Otherwise your just doing Alex2 with different criteria. You don't like my legitimate comments, and perhaps you're a very strong respector of authority etc... I understand that you love the idea of Radin and G appearing on the forum, like a guest at your dinner party, and you want them to be treated with some extra degree of respect, as if they are a celebrity - which I guess they are to you. But I think no such additional protection should be given to anyone. And Radin should be challenged just like everyone else is on here. If Randi had come on and I had said a similar thing, I don't think you would have acted so outraged.
Seriously, removing legitimate comments, because you don't like them is incorrect. You said you would consult before doing this stuff, instead you made claims I had said something that I hadn't, and you acted anyway.
Looks like the honeymoon is over for this forum. The same happened with Skeptiko. Whips are out. You will not challenge people that we respect.
You should stop trying to frame this as a personal issue only Laird had. I and several others thought you overstepped the mark. Whats legitimate about insinuating fraud anyway? You have no proof, it just drags the discussion down.
I suggested earlier that if a person is going to suggest fraud/cheating, it might be an idea to approach the subject somewhat obliquely. Cheating or fraud is always a possibility in any activity where success is claimed, whether Psi or not.
Sometimes the argument is that the result may have been achieved by some method which the opponent goes on to describe. This is often a it's very long way from showing that's what actually happened as opposed what might have happened as far as I can see.
Where someone has proof of cheating or fraud, then I can't see why they can't say that as in this case it would be then nub of the discussion and relevant. Perhaps it is more about the way the way it is presented? Perhaps moderators can suggest a rephrasing where that's appropriate? Just a thought.
(2017-09-08, 08:13 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]You've got to admit when you've over reacted, and made a wrong decision. Otherwise your just doing Alex2 with different criteria. You don't like my legitimate comments, and perhaps you're a very strong respector of authority etc... I understand that you love the idea of Radin and G appearing on the forum, like a guest at your dinner party, and you want them to be treated with some extra degree of respect, as if they are a celebrity - which I guess they are to you. But I think no such additional protection should be given to anyone. And Radin should be challenged just like everyone else is on here. If Randi had come on and I had said a similar thing, I don't think you would have acted so outraged.
Seriously, removing legitimate comments, because you don't like them is incorrect. You said you would consult before doing this stuff, instead you made claims I had said something that I hadn't, and you acted anyway.
Looks like the honeymoon is over for this forum. The same happened with Skeptiko. Whips are out. You will not challenge people that we respect. The mock outrage of people like Roberta, who's quite happy to call me all the names under the sun, then act wounded, has seized your attention. But I'm an adult, I can take it. I only draw the line at clearly harmful comments to someone's character. Like perhaps claiming another poster is a pedophile, And has convictions for sex crimes etc when their is no obvious proof of that.
I didn’t agree with your comments on that thread, Max. But I know you did not outright say that Radin was engaging in fraud, and I didn’t think your comments even remotely rose to defamation or libel. (However, I do think you are being quite stubborn! But that is just my personal opinion.)
I hope you don’t give up on the forum just yet. At least we are having these discussions about moderation out in the open, something that was tried, but always seemed to be fail, on the SF.
I think we should be able to speculate about people’s motives in research, like whether it’s intentional, due to (unconscious) bias, or just because of a big, old blind spot. I just read about a study yesterday that infuriated me (had nothing to do with psi or the paranormal), and I would definitely speculate on its flaws, conclusions, possibly intentional obfuscation in its conclusions and subsequent promotion in the media.
I also agree that those who post here who work in the field should not be treated like celebrities; they should be treated respectfully, just like any other forum poster. I think we should strive for civility in all discussions, even when things are heated, though I do allow that people sometimes lose their tempers from time to time, too.