Psience Quest

(2017-09-12, 03:59 PM)berkelon Wrote: [ -> ]I bet.

LOL.

(2017-09-12, 10:34 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for weighing in, David.

The problem with a pre-screening interview is that it wouldn't have prevented any of this. Our troublemaker is adept at misrepresentation and fakery - all he would have done is made up something plausible-sounding and gotten in anyway. A bit more effort for him, but he wouldn't care.

Logically this is true, but in practice, it made a huge difference. I don't know what it is - perhaps these people can't bear to write a few sentences expressing interest in ψ! Alternatively, perhaps they dislike actually deceiving a person with whom they are in contact - perhaps others are just 'nerds' - talking to humans isn't fun. When I first suggested it to Alex, I didn't know if it would work, but the effect was amazing. It also eliminated the problem of spammers. I don't think you have had them yet, but they can strike in an amazing way - presumably automated - but the automation is totally defeated. Once the people responsible know we are automaton-proof they will just go elsewhere.

You could start it up, and just more or less waive people through unless you find someone who wants to call themselves "The real Laird" or whatever. The mere prospect of engaging in a discussion seems to help.

David

(2017-09-12, 01:22 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ] Arouet. I don't know if you're currently ignoring me (or not ) but could you possibly point me in the direction of those
impersonations, I'm genuinely curious to see them.

Here's a short one that was on Michael Prescott's blog: http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/micha...nedy-.html

That's the only one that came up in search though I'm sure there were a bunch of others (there are two posts of mine that appear in that search where I refer to being the real me, not my "fan"),Not sure if they were deleted or not.  I've been directed to other sites where they've done it but I can't remember now.  The person themselves has PMd me on a few sites to alert me to some of them.  I haven't kept track though, I just get reports now and then.  

IIRC there's a thread on Skeptiko where someone drew attention to a fake me posting.  

My position has always been that I probably don't have an exclusive right on using this handle. 

I use a pretty consistent writing style so if you see a post ostensibly from me that seems out of character chances are its not me.  Happy to confirm if anyone sends me a link.

(2017-09-12, 05:51 PM)Arouet Wrote: [ -> ]I've been directed to other sites where they've done it but I can't remember now.  The person themselves has PMd me on a few sites to alert me to some of them.  I haven't kept track though, I just get reports now and then.  

Wasn't it on the AboveTopSecret - forum? Or was it someone else that got impersonated there?

(2017-09-12, 06:00 PM)Pollux Wrote: [ -> ]Wasn't it on the AboveTopSecret - forum? Or was it someone else that got impersonated there?

Possibly.  I think its on several sites.  Sometimes I think its also been combined with other names like "Eveshi Arouet", IIRC.

I didn't bother to track most of them down.

(2017-09-12, 10:22 AM)DaveB Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps at last, some of you are beginning to realise what moderating a ψ forum involves! It isn't that people come with different viewpoints, it is that some come with the intention of messing up the forum. We had endless trouble from those people on Skeptiko, but ultimately what can you do - there aren't the hours in the day to fully investigate these idiots.

I want this forum to succeed, because it has attracted so many Skeptiko regulars, and I feel that if it goes under, it will scatter our whole community. I think your Achilles heel will be your moderation policies. There are people here who don't seem to approve of any moderation, and I can understand their viewpoint in an abstract sense, but you can already see the beginnings of the wave of problems that inadequate moderation will bring. Already Laird has probably banned more people than I did in this year up to the point when things got nasty at Skeptiko! I don't blame him for that, but perhaps you can now see the problem, and why I did some of the things I did.

I would strongly suggest that you pre-screen new members, roughly in the way we do at Skeptiko. Each new member has to engage in a short email discussion with a moderator, and the moderator can decide to accept them, or not. I was amazed how useful this was at Skeptiko. This would be the biggest improvement you could make, and would involve far less moderator time, than trying to sort out the mess afterwards.

I would suggest that anyone who misbehaves to a level that means he is banned, loses the right for his posts to continue to appear. In some cases this may involve removing an entire thread, if it mainly related to the banned individual.

I suggested more than once to Alex, that we refuse to let people join if they want to use bizarre names, such as "Laird pseudoscience promoter" - why the hell should we give such a person the time of day? Obviously, this is best done in the pre-screen.

The problem is, that initially these people can be seen as vaguely amusing, but the volume of trouble quickly grows, and the forum becomes utterly tedious.

I would also suggest that verbal abuse towards other members of the forum - or the use of more than the odd rude word should be dealt with too. I was criticised for insisting on this - as though I was an old fuddy duddy. However, I had seen how letting this pass, progressively degrades the level of conversation, and undoubtedly puts off some people from joining. Imagine if you have kept the details of some incident - say and NDE - secret for many years. Are you going to wish to join a forum to discuss its significance, if people are swearing at each other?

Finally, I would suggest that discussion/criticism of the actions of moderators should be done privately by PM or email. It was very very wearing to have to deal with trouble makers, and then with endless wrangling as to whether I made the right decision.

David

(2017-09-12, 03:59 PM)berkelon Wrote: [ -> ]I bet.

Yeah, that worked out so well the last time... We only lost most of the forum. Nothing much, really.

(2017-09-12, 05:51 PM)Arouet Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a short one that was on Michael Prescott's blog: http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/micha...nedy-.html

That's the only one that came up in search though I'm sure there were a bunch of others (there are two posts of mine that appear in that search where I refer to being the real me, not my "fan"),Not sure if they were deleted or not.  I've been directed to other sites where they've done it but I can't remember now.  The person themselves has PMd me on a few sites to alert me to some of them.  I haven't kept track though, I just get reports now and then.  

IIRC there's a thread on Skeptiko where someone drew attention to a fake me posting.  

My position has always been that I probably don't have an exclusive right on using this handle. 

I use a pretty consistent writing style so if you see a post ostensibly from me that seems out of character chances are its not me.  Happy to confirm if anyone sends me a link.

Thanks, Arouet. I never saw that one.

(2017-09-12, 04:16 PM)DaveB Wrote: [ -> ]Logically this is true, but in practice, it made a huge difference. I don't know what it is - perhaps these people can't bear to write a few sentences expressing interest in ψ! Alternatively, perhaps they dislike actually deceiving a person with whom they are in contact - perhaps others are just 'nerds' - talking to humans isn't fun. When I first suggested it to Alex, I didn't know if it would work, but the effect was amazing. It also eliminated the problem of spammers. I don't think you have had them yet, but they can strike in an amazing way - presumably automated - but the automation is totally defeated. Once the people responsible know we are automaton-proof they will just go elsewhere.

You could start it up, and just more or less waive people through unless you find someone who wants to call themselves "The real Laird" or whatever. The mere prospect of engaging in a discussion seems to help.

David

Personally, if I had to justify my inclusion in writing before being allowed in, I wouldn't be here now. 

Interesting to learn that it was your idea though. I had believed that Alex was the control freak and you were just implementing his policy.

Whose idea was it to bake all those humble pies? MMMMmm.