Both forums need an introduction

[Laird]

Why is this kind of thing allowed

It's not. It breaks the first of the forum rules:

Basic rule: respect. Like most forums, we're asking that people try to be respectful of one another (or pretend to be!), even in the case of violent disagreement with another member's views. Heated debate is welcome, but not personal attacks.

@David (aka Captain Bligh)

Why not devote your efforts to Skeptiko ? I don't think there are many "mutineers" here (definitely not Fletcher Max) in these pleasant "Pitcairn-esque" surroundings, that are really that enthusiastic about 'helpful' suggestions from you, even if you mean well, which I think you do.

As I said, what's past is past but I do find it odd that you don't realise what a monumental misjudgement you made of the handling of Skeptiko which used to be really good.

[Laird]

Trying to be constructive, I do think there would be room for a brief introductory statement on the main page - together the with links to the forum sections that are already there.

Something could be said about the approach of the site, which focuses on discussion of the evidence about psi phenomena. And the fact that discussion is welcome from all parts of the proponent/sceptic spectrum, provided people are willing to address the evidence rather than just insisting on their preconceived beliefs. 

Despite the name, in practice I doubt whether most of the discussion is about science in the narrow sense, and I think that's as it should be. I think it would be a mistake to discourage people from participating because they don't have a burning desire to argue about Bayesian versus frequentist statistics, or the correct interpretation of the double slit experiment. So maybe a note to that effect could be included.

Maybe it would be helpful to run through how the main categories of psi phenomena are defined, though there might be a danger of getting bogged down in too much detail.

And maybe it would be good to make the essential point about the experimental evidence - that experimental parapsychology has been going for nearly a century now, and has produced results which depend on statistical interpretation but which on the face of it are very strong and haven't been satisfactorily explained in conventional terms. But that the existence of the phenomena is not accepted in the scientific world as a whole, and that those on the sceptical side insist that the experimental evidence can be explained by flaws in how the experiments have been carried out and how the results have been analysed, or by a tendency to report only successful studies.

I agree with pretty much everything here. About the only thing I think needs clarifying is where an introductory statement should "live". I'm not entirely sure what Dave and others have meant by the "main" page - perhaps the domain root, i.e. http://psiencequest.net/, which currently redirects to the main forum index http://psiencequest.net/forums/? Or perhaps inserted into the main forum index itself above the list of forums? I'd suggest that neither of those is the best place, and that instead it would be better as a post in the "Forum Rules" forum titled something like "An Introduction to Psience Quest", to which we could link in the forum's header, perhaps leftmost, i.e. to the left of the "Portal" link, as something like "Forum Introduction".

[Ninshub]

Why is this kind of thing allowed, when careful language users musn't express thoughts contrary to the sensibilities of a few snowflakes unless they do so in a remote corner of the site?

...and because there were enough of those "snowflakes" (ad hominem?) to make that option the one voted on, democratically.

[Laird]

I hope you do put a front page on the forum, because I think it will help you, but I have decided not to contribute further to that effort.

Hey David,

I thought you'd made a good start on a summary from a proponent-oriented perspective. I accept that others feel that an "official" introduction needs to be more neutral, and, as I wrote above, I think Chris's suggestion captures that quite well, but I wonder whether your summary might have a place on the wiki so long as it is made clear that it is coming from a proponent's perspective. Other perspectives could then, also, be represented on the wiki. Potentially, then, multiple different perspectives, each maintained on the wiki, could be linked to from the "official" introduction.

(I addressed all of that to David because I don't want him to be discouraged from persevering with his draft, but I'm also putting it out there for general consideration/comment).

I also want to emphasise as I wrote above that personal attacks on you (or anybody else) of the sort in this post are against the forum rules. Although we are light on moderator intervention, I ask Max_B to reconsider that particular post in this light.

Done

LOL!

David

I thought I had made it clear, I don't want the front page of the site to be changed.



Edit: Actually I'm going to say some more... you don't generally participate on this site at all... you moderate a competing forum... and your attitudes and behavior there are one of the major reasons why this forum was set up... to get away from you, because you sucked the life out of it.

So why the heck have you blown in to Psience now... and started telling us that this forum must change... what the hell has it got to do with you? You don't have my, and other forum members interests at heart, that's why we left you and Alex, and that's why my posting rights on Skeptiko were removed, and remain so to this day.

Why am I even commenting on your post, and humoring your ideas... ****************************...

(So I'm going to be very impolite now) ...**********************************************************?

Edit2: Agreed the particular language I used above on PSIence wasn't appropriate, and now removed...

I liked* this post after the retraction. Just to be clear. I agree with Max (but not his extra 'statements' which I didn't like) Please take note, David. I welcome you as a poster but that's it.

Why is this kind of thing allowed, when careful language users musn't express thoughts contrary to the sensibilities of a few snowflakes unless they do so in a remote corner of the site?

Nearly every time I visit Skeptiko I'm reminded of the wisdom of Psience Quest not hosting discussions of politics and conspiracy theories in the publicly accessible forums.

I thought you'd made a good start on a summary from a proponent-oriented perspective. I accept that others feel that an "official" introduction needs to be more neutral, and, as I wrote above, I think Chris's suggestion captures that quite well, but I wonder whether your summary might have a place on the wiki so long as it is made clear that it is coming from a proponent's perspective. Other perspectives could then, also, be represented on the wiki. Potentially, then, multiple different perspectives, each maintained on the wiki, could be linked to from the "official" introduction.

(I addressed all of that to David because I don't want him to be discouraged from persevering with his draft, but I'm also putting it out there for general consideration/comment).

Although I didn't think David's piece was appropriate as an "official" introduction to the site, I like the idea of a selection of introductions written from different viewpoints.