Feedback wanted on the three links per week limit in the opt-in forums (and beyond)

[Laird]

Are we being asked another question?

Because I don’t understand why there is any remaining controversy… although there clearly is…

and please be BLUNT, as there appears to be lots of dancing around an issue (or specific forum subject matter) which is at the heart of the matter, but which is not being stated clearly here. Please name the subject…

Before asking for blunt explanations from the rest of us, you would do well to bluntly explain, and apologise for, your childish rage quit, in which you deleted most of your posts, despite your primary claim in that whole affair having been conclusively demonstrated to be false - or do you expect us all to just pretend like it never happened, and for you to be able to just casually rejoin the forum and participate normally as if it never happened?

I'm beginning to wonder if anything really matters.  It seems human nature will never change, and that is precisely what is required.  Whatever you legislate against doesn't stop, it just gets driven underground where it festers.

Before asking for blunt explanations from the rest of us, you would do well to bluntly explain, and apologise for, your childish rage quit, in which you deleted most of your posts, despite your primary claim in that whole affair having been conclusively demonstrated to be false - or do you expect us all to just pretend like it never happened, and for you to be able to just casually rejoin the forum and participate normally as if it never happened?

His claim that Omni was a troll? I thought that was obviously shown to be true...

Anyway I think it's a bit weird for a mod to demand a member prostrate themselves. Members should be allowed to delete their posts, leave & return without begging forgiveness.

Max's request here is pretty reasonable.

 Members should be allowed to delete their posts, leave & return without begging forgiveness.

It does remind me a bit of another forum that we all know......

Anyway I think it's a bit weird for a mod to demand a member prostrate themselves. Members should be allowed to delete their posts, leave & return without begging forgiveness.

Completely agree.

As I am one of the founders and the one who is deciding whether or not to abandon my own participation in this forum, I should explain and perhaps this will also answer the question Max has asked.

Over the past few months I have become increasingly aware of, and concerned by, the association of spiritual enquiry and Psi related subject matter with a kind of internet mania for conspiracy theories - particularly politically motivated thoeries and particularly those originating from what I (and many commentators) would consider to be extremists and/or hate mongers. 

I do not take part in the opt-in forums but I had noticed some bleed-through into the main forum. I was one of those objecting to the inclusion of opt-in forums in the first place because I was afraid of that association with the extremes.

In the private conversation between the founders, I offered a recent example. There is a documentary (I saw it on a streaming service but I think it is from a channel called Vice TV) called "The Search for Q" - a piece of investigative journalism looking into the origins of QAnon. In the documentary they interviewed believers in these so-called Q-Drops (basically whatever the person or group behind Q wants their followers to believe - no evidence required). All well and good except that the presenters of the show added their own profile of a typical QAnon believer and it was, to me, stark evidence of what I had been pointing out for months. In their words, apart from believing in all sorts of strange conspiracy theories, a typical Q-follower will be into "magical thinking" such as alternative health (associated with anti-vax) and New Age spiritual beliefs. In other words, anyone who questions the mainstream materialist worldview - and that includes this forum. 

They do not make the distinction. They do not compare like with like. There is, for me, a vast difference between the kind of evidence we discuss here - the kind of evidence presented by all those PhDs in the Bigelow Essay competition - and the kind of evidence presented by the likes of Alex Jones and QAnon in support of their hate-filled crusades. I suspect that some here would also see a kinship with those conspiracy theorists in the same way that Skeptiko went down that same rabbit hole and the very reason this forum was created.

So that is why I objected to the formation of the opt-in section in the first place and it is now the reason why I believe that this forum is also in danger of following the trjectoty of Skeptiko. But I am one voice. I know that a few are in agreement with me but I and, perhaps one other founder, have made it clear that we will not hang around and be associated with such a development. I'm already avoiding telling those close to me that I participate in this forum wheras I used to encourage others to come and take a look at our rational debates. 

One last anecdote: [Removed as I can't produce evidence in support of the anecdote so I decided to remove it].

As for free speech - fine. Firstly, find a forum where the subject matter is to your liking but don't bring your crusade to my "safe place" where I want to discuss the subjects this forum was created to discuss. Secondly, there is a difference between free speech and hate speech. Some would defend the right of anyone to target those who they don't like or who they disagree with by subjecting them to unfounded and hurtful accusations and threats. That is not my idea of free speech.

[Ninshub]

i think it's easier to be stricter about what gets posted in the main forums because that stuff can be placed in those opt-in forums instead.

I tend to think that would be fairly easy to moderate. I could be wrong.

[Laird]

His claim that Omni was a troll? I thought that was obviously shown to be true...

I meant his claim that the OmniVersalNexus on Psience Quest was "NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT [etc etc]" the same OmniVersalNexus as on Reddit, which I checked by contacting the OmniVersalNexus account on Reddit, who confirmed that he was the same Omni as on Psience Quest.

A reasonable response might have been, "Oh. Huh. I was so confident that they were different people. Turns out I was wrong. Maybe I should reevaluate the situation". Instead, Max informed us that he was leaving the forum after deleting all his posts, giving a running commentary of how many he'd deleted so far.

And even the claim that Omni was a troll was false, but I know you'll never accept that, so...

Anyway I think it's a bit weird for a mod to demand a member prostrate themselves

I wasn't writing as a mod, just an ordinary member who directly witnessed another member's bad behaviour, and thinks some sort of acknowledgement is in order - but I'm not "demanding" it; I just think it's a matter of common courtesy. Brian has similarly rage quit, deleted a bunch of posts, and returned, but he has at least had the decency to acknowledge that it was poor form.

Max's request here is pretty reasonable.

Agreed, so, here's an answer:

For some time, the opt-in forums have been used as a means of campaigning or crusading for sociopolitical causes - especially COVID skepticism, and especially by Steve aka Stan Woolley - with many posts being little other than links to tweets, or embedded videos which push that cause. A couple of the board custodians (the remaining active forum founders, of whom there are four) feel so strongly that this is inappropriate use of those forums, and also that they don't like for our board nor themselves personally to be associated with that sort of campaigning for that sort of cause, that they say they might leave unless something is done about it, up to and including removing the opt-in forums altogether. Some ordinary members seem to feel similarly.

The other two board custodians (including myself) either don't see this as a problem to be fixed by us as board custodians or remain neutral on the issue, but have been willing to allow some sort of action to be taken (at least as a compromise), given the strength of feelings of the other two board custodians on the matter.

The first compromise we attempted was rate limiting the posting of links to the opt-in forums. There were some objections to this though, in particular that it is too limiting of posters' ability to reference their claims, and we figured it might not be the best compromise.

The second compromise being proposed is to implement the strict set of rules described by Ian (Ninshub) above (the rate limit on links would then be lifted).

A choice for the membership, then, is being offered (by those board custodians who feel so strongly on the matter): either we adopt these rules for the opt-in forums, or we get rid of them altogether.

So, yes, Max, you are being asked another question: do we adopt those rules or do we eliminate the opt-in forums altogether?

Brian has similarly rage quit, deleted a bunch of posts, and returned, but he has at least had the decency to acknowledge that it was poor form.

I might be a grumpy git but at least I'm humble.

I've only had time to glance through the last few posts but just to say that Omni is absolutely not a troll, I can assure everyone on here of that. I hope you will accept my word for it as I can't go into any more detail about it.