Banned from Skeptiko until 15 Feb

[Laird]

Laird,

 Do you really think it's good for PsienceQuest to be the place for meta-commentary on the practices of Skeptiko? If you as an admin/mod are allowed to do it why shouldn't anyone else from over there come here to voice their complaints?

 I thought the whole point of PsienceQuest was to just up and leave Skeptiko, especially for those of us who didn't have any intention for trying to undo our bannings?

Hi Sci,

It's not something I think should be a regular, ongoing thing, but it has a precedent in earlier threads, and I can't recall whether we made any particular decision as to whether or not to allow it back then. If you can point to anything, then I'm open to having my memory corrected. I'm also open to a discussion here and now as to whether meta-commentary on Skeptiko should be allowed on Psience Quest. My view is that it might be OK in moderation when it comes up naturally, but that it shouldn't be a focus for the forum, or encouraged, or have any thread dedicated to it or the like.

I'm not trying to set up a double-standard for admins/mods versus the rest of membership - ordinary members have been voicing their complaints in this thread too, and other members from Skeptiko are free to join. I guess you're raising the possibility that members from Skeptiko might join merely to complain about Skeptiko? That seems unlikely to me - and I would expect and hope anyway that anybody thinking of such a thing would in the end stick around to participate in other discussions on the forum.

[Laird]

Action is what actually causes change. Words in and of themselves do nothing no matter how inspiring you think they are. Without the action to back it up, talking is about as effective as doing nothing.

Though I still think words can effect change, I also understand your point. The motto of my high school, which I think was a good one, for example, was "Deeds not words".

Besides we're not talking about trying to form a concrete plan of action with another person with intent to carry it out. We're talking about arguing with random people on the internet.

Fair enough. I often wonder whether my time is wasted posting to forums. On the other hand, you never know who's reading, and the effect what you write will have on them.

Hi Sci,

It's not something I think should be a regular, ongoing thing, but it has a precedent in earlier threads, and I can't recall whether we made any particular decision as to whether or not to allow it back then. If you can point to anything, then I'm open to having my memory corrected. I'm also open to a discussion here and now as to whether meta-commentary on Skeptiko should be allowed on Psience Quest. My view is that it might be OK in moderation when it comes up naturally, but that it shouldn't be a focus for the forum, or encouraged, or have any thread dedicated to it or the like.

I'm not trying to set up a double-standard for admins/mods versus the rest of membership - ordinary members have been voicing their complaints in this thread too, and other members from Skeptiko are free to join. I guess you're raising the possibility that members from Skeptiko might join merely to complain about Skeptiko? That seems unlikely to me - and I would expect and hope anyway that anybody thinking of such a thing would in the end stick around to participate in other discussions on the forum.

Well there was talk of this being a sister site to Skeptiko, which I took to mean we wouldn't bec[o]me the bashing forum for people annoyed by something there to come here to complain about it.

There was probably a time when Skeptiko was one of the premiere locations for questions regarding consciousness [as it intersects with the paranormal], when that was Alex's primary interest. Now that Alex pursues other interests I guess I find little of what goes on there having much relevance to what goes on here. For example Climate Change debates - and the attendant conspiracy theories - are quite common across the Internet.

[Laird]

Well there was talk of this being a sister site to Skeptiko, which I took to mean we wouldn't became the bashing forum for people annoyed by something there to come here to complain about it.

Fair enough. And I didn't intend for this thread to become a "bashing" thread, although in hindsight I ought to have recognised the obvious potential for that to happen. (I just wanted to make public that I had been banned there, and then rebanned, given that David wasn't willing to make the announcement himself in other than oblique terms).

[Laird]

Per sensible private suggestion, have moved this thread from the Forum Questions, Suggestions and Announcements forum to the Other Topics forum, given that it's not an announcement of anything relevant to PQ itself.

Though I still think words can effect change, I also understand your point. The motto of my high school, which I think was a good one, for example, was "Deeds not words".


Fair enough. I often wonder whether my time is wasted posting to forums. On the other hand, you never know who's reading, and the effect what you write will have on them.

I don't think talking on forums is in and of itself useless, but if you're really looking to inspire and catalyse and all that, it's probably not going to happen by arguing about stuff you're doing nothing about. I'm not immune to this either but I've been making sure to try and only post relevant things on here and for the most part I do okay. Most of what I post, thread wise, is about stuff I'm doing with magic or experiences I've had, what they've taught me and how they're related to my single overall goal of magic. I also explicitly open them all up for people to ask questions of but strangely almost no one ever has. Instead people seem intent to argue about really stupid things that don't matter regardless of which side is right. I think you've actually replied to more of any of my threads asking anything at all than anyone, you might in fact be on the only one who's ever replied, though I'd have to go back and check. I know that's not true of some of what's till on Skeptiko though.

You'd think the prospect of trying to develop straight up real magic would be a topic people might want to talk about, like how would you do it, what are the roadblocks, how do you get around them, reporting what happens during certain trials and stuff. But no, apparently people aren't all that interested in trying any of this stuff themselves or helping people who are. Arguing about the definitions of affect and effect is way more important than something like that.

Then let me explain:

I was posting on a thread about global warming. I accept that the threat that global warming poses is significant and existential, and that it is urgent that we as a global civilisation do something about it. Anybody arguing that we need or ought not do anything is putting us all at risk. A strong response to such a person is justified. If their argument is that they understand science and that the science behind global warming is a hoax, then pointing out that in fact they are scientifically illiterate is justified.

Now, I know that you see things differently. You side with the person who argues that we need or ought not do anything. To you it does not matter that somebody who has no relevant expertise makes false claims about climate science. But please try to see things from my perspective to at least understand why I take the approach that I do. Can you try to do that, David?

You need to realise that it is unreasonable to use a moral argument against people - such as myself - who genuinely believe the view that 'climate change' is happening at a greater rate than it always does because of CO2 in the atmosphere. The whole The thread is meant to be about the evidence, and maybe the supposed mechanism of CC - not morals!

The Doctor who claims that statins are very ineffective at preventing heart disease, and have dangerous side effects, encounters the same false logic. Senior medics attack not his logic, but use heart rending (possible pun) pleas, "You are killing patients with your advice!" I hope you see the analogy.

David

[Laird]

You need to realise that it is unreasonable to use a moral argument against people - such as myself - who genuinely believe the view that 'climate change' is happening at a greater rate than it always does because of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I wasn't using a moral argument in the post for which you banned me, it is simply what motivated me to make that post. But even if I had been: do you ban members on Skeptiko simply for making arguments with which you disagree?

What on earth is wrong with pointing out in a thread in which scientific matters are crucial that one of the most prolific contributors to that thread in recent months, who purports to understand that the science is wrong, and why it is wrong, has in fact proved himself to be scientifically illiterate in another thread? Isn't that an entirely relevant fact to point out in that situation?

Also, why are his rude and inappropriate comments directed towards me ignored (by you) and given a free pass, whereas my appropriate (though critical) comments about him get me banned? [ETA: To be clear, I don't care of itself that no moderator action was taken re his comments (because I can handle them myself) - I care about the double standard in moderation.]

[ETA2:]

But please try to see things from my perspective to at least understand why I take the approach that I do. Can you try to do that, David?

Apparently not...

I wasn't using a moral argument in the post for which you banned me, it is simply what motivated me to make that post. But even if I had been: do you ban members on Skeptiko simply for making arguments with which you disagree?

Obviously I don't, but the problem is that throwing moral judgements around in something like the CAGW debate quickly turns into a process of blaming other forum members simply for having a different opinion. I mean those on the other side see CAGW vastly differently from how you do. To give you one example [Content removed: we limit discussion about politically and scientifically controversial topics such as global warming to the opt-in, members-only forums. Feel free to repost your content there, David. --Laird]

I'd hazard a guess that nobody on Skeptiko has a stake in either side of CAGW (oil shares or green energy shares, say) so they are simply stating what they think about the idea that the world will be noticeably different 12 years from now because of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. They simply say what they believe is true, and point out the incredible inconsistencies in the story that climate activists would like to portray.

What on earth is wrong with pointing out in a thread in which scientific matters are crucial that one of the most prolific contributors to that thread in recent months, who purports to understand that the science is wrong, and why it is wrong, has in fact proved himself to be scientifically illiterate in another thread? Isn't that an entirely relevant fact to point out in that situation?

Because it is easy to pick on some isolated point that someone has got wrong - or simply worded badly - and condemn them in that way. LS has made huge scientific contributions on Skeptiko - indeed some years back (remember he was away for a while) he was the one that discussed with me at length until I realised that evolution by mutation and natural selection was simply wrong.

Also, why are his rude and inappropriate comments directed towards me ignored (by you) and given a free pass, whereas my appropriate (though critical) comments about him get me banned?

Unless a moderator performs a null job - simply lets anyone say what they like - the process requires a lot of judgement. Often I do additional things, such as PM people to get them to adjust their behaviour. I don't like banning people, except perhaps the spammers, and ideally I like everyone to actually discuss ideas, politely as one might at a dinner party. Skeptiko isn't a campaigning platform, it is about interesting alternative ideas. LS makes an amazing contribution by bringing new ideas to the forum.

Letting people simply squabble kills off the interest. You must know yourself, if you open a forum, and you just see A blasting B, who blasts back at A for page after page - well you just move on. That drowns out more thoughtful posters, whose views get lost in the froth. I see it is my job to prevent that happening as far as possible on Skeptiko.

David

There are no squabbles. It's always one or two members who are "disruptive, playing games, manipulative" and one or a few members who are "patient, knowledgeable, reasonable" in return. Which member falls into which category is determined by prejudice, even on Psciencequest. The difference is that the moderators at Skeptiko act on their prejudices and call it "judgement", whereas the moderators here mostly do not (to give credit where due).

One of my favoritist threads on Skeptiko was one where we found two examples of identical behavior and then listed the labels given to that behavior - the positive label and the negative label - depending upon whether it had been a proponent or a skeptic engaging in the behavior. It was even funnier because the praise-worthy proponent behavior was almost always more egregious than the insult-worthy skeptic behavior. It was deleted, of course. No insight coming from the moderators then, either.

Linda