(2017-09-08, 07:44 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]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.
OK. Thanks for this post, Chris, it's very helpful to at least me. Maybe we could consider in the rest of this thread (aside from whatever else people want to discuss related to the topic) what the circumstances are (if any) under which a moderator should intervene in cases of potentially defamatory content.
I think based on your above post that you are saying: (1) only in allegations such as sex offences ("and so on", which unfortunately leaves a lot out, but then you did say that a strict rule is impossible to formulate), but not with respect to allegations of cheating or fraud in faking paranormal phenomena, and (2) only when asserting as fact a blatant falsehood, and not when offering an opinion (or, presumably, a suggestion or possibility).
I understand that berkelon is saying: only for blatant hate speech - otherwise, moderators should just stay out of it.
Personally, the perspective you guys along with Max are putting is becoming appealing to me, and here's why: we started this forum on the basis that moderation would be
liberal. I am not so sure that policing defamatory claims, for which the forum itself is not anyway legally liable, is a particularly liberal policy.
I'd like for us to "get back to basics" in this respect.
Anyhow, there's where I'm at right now.
(2017-09-08, 09:58 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]I think based on your above post that you are saying: (1) only in allegations such as sex offences ("and so on", which unfortunately leaves a lot out, but then you did say that a strict rule is impossible to formulate), but not with respect to allegations of cheating or fraud in faking paranormal phenomena ...
Just to clarify - what I meant was that discussion of possible paranormal fakery should be dealt with more liberally than every other kind of defamation (sex offences were just an example). Because it's impossible to discuss the subject of psi sensibly without sometimes touching on that possibility.
Personally, I'd be happy to see the other kinds of defamation deleted, in the same way they would have to be if the site were hosted in the UK. But that would involve more work for the moderators.
(2017-09-08, 08:39 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]That's just your character speaking... you think people should stop doing things when you don't like them. Things seem to appear very Black n White to you. There is a constant sense of frustration, and friction from your posts when arguing any point. It's the sort of mock outrage simmering under the surface that is designed to stop people expressing their own opinion, and undermine your opponents legitimacy, and it can flare to outrage in an attempt to get your own way. Where as other posters take a more balanced approach and realise there is more than their own side to any argument.
Ah so now it's me and Laird who have personal issues! What's your excuse for Karmaling and others who also took exception to what you said?
Maybe Max, just maybe mate, you're in the wrong. Something to consider!
(2017-09-08, 10:12 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Just to clarify - what I meant was that discussion of possible paranormal fakery should be dealt with more liberally than every other kind of defamation (sex offences were just an example). Because it's impossible to discuss the subject of psi sensibly without sometimes touching on that possibility.
Personally, I'd be happy to see the other kinds of defamation deleted, in the same way they would have to be if the site were hosted in the UK. But that would involve more work for the moderators.
In the thread in question you were preparing a critique of the study's analysis of the results. Has the current brouhaha dissuaded you from presenting it?
(2017-09-08, 09:13 AM)Doppelgänger Wrote: [ -> ]Just to get it out of the way, I thought his sound argument was ridiculous.
So you are using a string of posts to point to his intention/motive? Did he make a complete post that outright said that Radin was engaging in fraud?
Also, I reserve the right to criticize studies that have questionable backers, or what I suspect is propaganda masquerading as scientific studies when it's tied to, say, big pharmaceutical or agricultural companies/industries.
I think we should hold psi/paranormal researchers and studies to the same standard. I know it's tempting to cut them some slack because they are so marginalized. But I also don't believe in the "extraordinary claims" argument from skeptics (and current scientific climate) either. They should all be held to the same standard.
Max repeatedly insinuated that Radin might be altering his work fraudulently to produce false positive results in order to generate revenue for ION's (Laird wisely removed these insinuations after he asked Max to but Max refused).. IMHO that's a serious accusation that he has no evidence for. If he has evidence for it fine but I don't think you or I would appreciated insinuations of fraud with zero evidence to back them up.
(2017-09-08, 08:37 AM)Doppelgänger Wrote: [ -> ]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.
He didn't outright say it, but he suggested that Radin had produced false positive results to generate money for ION's (that's fraud by the way) - are you and yours really comfortable with freedom throwing around fraud insinuations without a shred of evidence? I get you guys want to speak freely but it could make it difficult to secure interviews etc if users are saying these same people are engaging in fraud! I have two secured anyway and I don't think I'm asking much by suggesting we don't insinuate fraud and other allegations without evidence - I would like to be able to get us more. Also it's not celebrity worship to say what I've said above - just common decency IMHO.
(2017-09-08, 10:24 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]In the thread in question you were preparing a critique of the study's analysis of the results. Has the current brouhaha dissuaded you from presenting it?
Only in that what happened on the thread illustrates that it's important to understand what's going on before commenting. I still need to find the time to understand the theory, the choice of variables and so on.
(2017-09-08, 10:25 AM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]Max repeatedly insinuated that Radin might be altering his work fraudulently to produce false positive results in order to generate revenue for ION's (Laird wisely removed these insinuations after he asked Max to but Max refused).. IMHO that's a serious accusation that he has no evidence for. If he has evidence for it fine but I don't think you or I would appreciated insinuations of fraud with zero evidence to back them up.
You've got a strong point, R, which influenced me to take the action I did in the first place. But what do you make of Chris's point that if we apply this same standard across the board, then folks wouldn't be able to speculate about cheating (or even fraud) in e.g. the case of Uri Geller being tested by SRI? Don't get me wrong, I think the SRI experiments were legit, and I don't think the allegation of cheating holds up, but would we want to prohibit it as defamatory? If not, then how would you distinguish between these two cases (Max vs Geller skeptics)?