Forum Rules and Guidelines Discussion

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.

There are plenty of proponents who don't play fair and try to dominate threads and shout others down, yet nobody seems to be suggesting that they should be subject to moderation action. And I suspect this claim about skeptics is specious, anyways. There can't be any sort of prolonged back and forth discussion unless there are at least two people involved, and how do you place blame on one and not the other (except through prejudice)? As long as it's civil, why not just leave discussion alone? If somebody doesn't like the conversation they can simply leave or stop reading it. I didn't see people continue to post long after they had stopped receiving responses, so I suspect this would make it a non-issue.

I think it was this sort of uneven micro-management which the moderators here are trying to avoid, not copy.

Linda

And I suspect this claim about skeptics is specious, anyways. There can't be any sort of prolonged back and forth discussion unless there are at least two people involved, and how do you place blame on one and not the other (except through prejudice)?

Linda

I got this at school. I'd be bullied in the playground, became involved in a fight to protect myself and end up getting caned by the headmaster (yes, it was still allowed back then) along with the bully. Some sceptics are bullies and so are some proponents so the blame is not always equally shared.

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.

The draft rules and guidelines say:
"Bannings will not be considered an option unless all other means fail (with the exception of members joining for the main purpose of trolling)."

I think that's far preferable to banning people based on a subjective view that they're "obnoxious".

The draft rules and guidelines say:
"Bannings will not be considered an option unless all other means fail (with the exception of members joining for the main purpose of trolling)."

I think that's far preferable to banning people based on a subjective view that they're "obnoxious".

Or replace "obnoxious" with "an unsuitable dinner party guest."

[Ninshub]

The draft rules and guidelines say:
"Bannings will not be considered an option unless all other means fail (with the exception of members joining for the main purpose of trolling)."

I think that's far preferable to banning people based on a subjective view that they're "obnoxious".

Yes. And you can take that to the bank, btw. (I'll fight for it.)

[Ninshub]

I think it was this sort of uneven micro-management which the moderators here are trying to avoid, not copy.

Linda

That's exactly right.

(with the exception of members joining for the main purpose of trolling)."

So a moderate amount of trolling is allowed. Thank god.

I would be in favor of allowing members to post what they'd like, where they'd like, with some obvious exceptions, like hate speech, obvious trolling and extreme personal attacks. Simple solution. Let people post who are here to participate and don't shut off parts of the forum unless you believe a certain thing...

I begin to see that there is hope for this forum. I feel bad for my original cynicism.

Linda