Forum Rules and Guidelines Discussion

I'm probably being a Pollyanna here, but isn't it simply a question of decorum?

Proponents and sceptics should be able to engage respectfully while presenting their differing perspectives, evidence, etc. Sure, often times it ultimately devolves into repeating arguments but I've seen folks involved recognize that fact and agree to disagree while abandoning the dialogue. No harm; no foul.

Trolling, baiting and insulting are the things I would suggest be moderated and moderated transparently.

I'm probably being a Pollyanna here, but isn't it simply a question of decorum?

Proponents and sceptics should be able to engage respectfully while presenting their differing perspectives, evidence, etc.  Sure, often times it ultimately devolves into repeating arguments but I've seen folks involved recognize that fact and agree to disagree while abandoning the dialogue.  No harm; no foul.

Trolling, baiting and insulting are the things I would suggest be moderated and moderated transparently.

I agree. The mods simply need to earn the trust of the posters through open, consistent decisions. We need to move past our history at Skeptiko and assume it's going to be like that.

It has been pointed out to me privately that my position regarding the presence of skeptics in the Extended Consciousness Phenomena forum runs counter to the following section of the rules expressed in the Forum rules and guidelines thread:

The skeptic/proponent divide question. This forum is open to both proponents and those who are traditionally called "skeptics". Said skeptics are allowed to participate on all the forums and sub-forums. However, when an individual does not accept the anomalous nature of any of the various phenomena in the Extended Consciousness Phenomena (ECP) forum, and when the intent is strictly to "debunk", that type of post should be reserved for the Skeptic vs. Proponent Discussions sub-forum (or at least kept out of the ECP forum), so that proponents can have space to have discussions that extend beyond the "is it real or not real?" variety without unwanted and derailing interventions.

I'm genuinely sorry for the confusion this has caused, and have changed my position to welcome skeptical participation in the ECP forum.

I'm probably being a Pollyanna here, but isn't it simply a question of decorum?

Proponents and sceptics should be able to engage respectfully while presenting their differing perspectives, evidence, etc.  Sure, often times it ultimately devolves into repeating arguments but I've seen folks involved recognize that fact and agree to disagree while abandoning the dialogue.  No harm; no foul.

Trolling, baiting and insulting are the things I would suggest be moderated and moderated transparently.

I agree. The simplest form of moderation would be to ask for civility (http://nicd.arizona.edu/research-report/...s-civility). This works for many other forums. 

Linda

I agree. The simplest form of moderation would be to ask for civility (http://nicd.arizona.edu/research-report/...s-civility). This works for many other forums. 

Linda

I seem to remember that Hannibal Lecter was the model of civility when talking to Agent Starling. 

I agree that the problems weren't caused by skeptics drifting into proponent sections. However I do think a lot of problems were caused by uneven, random and opaque moderation.
It is my hope (and confidence) that the big difference between here and 'the other place' will be open transparent moderation. Many posters (not just skeptics) had to be very careful how they presented their views on Skeptiko, even in the CD forum. Dancing around Alex, AP, and David became an Olympic sport in which some of us had to get our message over between the lines.
(Remember, when you received your permanent ban, David had specifically asked you to comment on something in the CD forum and, after you did so, he banned you). 

There appears to be s lot of good will on all 'sides' for this project and to some extent we're just going to have to see how it goes but the governance of the forum appears to be in good hands.

Yes, I was disgusted by David's behavior towards me, especially at the end, and Andy's wasn't much better. I'm inured to the idea of poor moderation as it was all I ever experienced - in all the times I was suspended or banned, it was never for just cause. And no one was ever held to civility standards when I was the target. I'm not saying this to complain - it's no skin off my back. But I want to be explicit about the pattern that was set which some posters probably expect/hope to continue.

I'm all for transparent and open moderation. However, it is inevitable that one or a few members will make a stink about my presence/posts, regardless of content, and the moderators will be faced with making some sort of gesture to placate them. I suspect that these gestures will continue to be made, regardless of the hands the forum is in. I'm suggesting that it may be better to throw me under the bus - treat me differently on an ad hoc basis, rather than try to arrange the rules to 'jusitfy" these gestures.

The other alternative is for the moderators to put their foot down, and insist that everyone is treated the same. However, it would make me much more uncomfortable if the forum was disrupted on my account, than it would to suffer the slings and arrows I'm already used to.

Linda

I seem to remember that Hannibal Lecter was the model of civility when talking to Agent Starling. 

I do believe that you are correct. And that turned out to be a very productive discussion.

Linda

I think that sensible and fair moderation - combined with a disciplined refusal to feed trolls - would work wonders, if it could be achieved.

It's fair to suggest an open mind should be enough to engage critically in any of the Extended Consciousness Phenomena forums. However, I'll bet nearly every opponent of psi phenomena who ever repeatedly disrupted psi/NDE discussions considered him/herself open minded. For now, let them voice their criticisms of individual cases under discussion in the Skeptics v Proponents forum.

I guess I count as a proponent, and I often say that I am still open minded. I think that is essential, otherwise belief in ψ becomes a sort of religion.

I decided fairly soon after starting moderating at Skeptiko, that sorting people into believers and sceptics didn't work. I don't think it is the distinction to make. There are sceptics who play fair and are no trouble at all anywhere on the forum. There are sceptics that don't play fair, and try to dominate threads and shout others down. Then there are others that are just rude, or seem to want to play about (the vast majority of those I banned after we had got rid of the spammers).

I won't mention names, except perhaps Paul A - he is an example of a sceptic who plays by the rules. I would see no reason to restrict him in any way.

If someone starts to become obnoxious (obviously a subjective decision) I think the best approach is to warn them once or twice, maybe try a temporary ban, but then ban them completely.

David

I guess I count as a proponent, and I often say that I am still open minded. I think that is essential, otherwise belief in ψ becomes a sort of religion.

I decided fairly soon after starting moderating at Skeptiko, that sorting people into believers and sceptics didn't work. I don't think it is the distinction to make. There are sceptics who play fair and are no trouble at all anywhere on the forum. There are sceptics that don't play fair, and try to dominate threads and shout others down. Then there are others that are just rude, or seem to want to play about (the vast majority of those I banned after we had got rid of the spammers).

I won't mention names, except perhaps Paul A - he is an example of a sceptic who plays by the rules. I would see no reason to restrict him in any way.

If someone starts to become obnoxious (obviously a subjective decision) I think the best approach is to warn them once or twice, maybe try a temporary ban, but then ban them completely.

David

Sage advice from an experienced moderator.