Forum Rules and Guidelines Discussion

There is little doubt in my mind that this rigid ‘PSI only forum’ stance held by certain key members is being used to support both their own wishes and a means of keeping the forums image ‘pure’. They have very strong opinions on certain topics, the opposite of many such opinions are voiced or such views questioned by myself and others. I feel sure that if I and others were pushing a pro trump/ pro vaccine/ pro lockdown etc line in the hidden forums - then the forum would be at peace. I guess if that were my stance then certain ‘founder members’ and others would likely ignore any intrusion into the main forum by me and rules would not be as strictly enforced. Imo ‘the rules’ should be slightly flexible as in practice they often are. 

Very rigid enforcement doesn’t sit well with the original spirit of this forum imo.

[Ninshub]

Well curiously you seem to want to drag me into a political discussion here - so if Ninshub wishes to remove your post and this that is fine by me.

I am also interested in politics, but I find all the various labels, Left, Right, Far Right, Alt-Right, etc just about meaningless. Their meaning shifts over time and gets deliberately manipulated by politicians.

What is important to me, is that I am very, very anti-war.

I am old enough to remember very clearly the numbing fear we all felt in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In 2016, and again in 2020, I was pretty convinced that Trump would keep us out of war. Sadly Biden was selected as president in 2020, and as I feared, we are drifting dangerously close to another war.

My partner was born in what was then known as Eastern Europe, and she knows a lot more of the details of the politics out there - which are not really as they are portrayed in the West. She also has family who are uncomfortably close to any possible action.

If the war turns nuclear, we are all uncomfortably close to any possible action.

David

Could you simply edit your own post? You coud simply say you're very, very anti-war without getting to explanations that go into explicit political content.

[Ninshub]

There is little doubt in my mind that this rigid ‘PSI only forum’ stance held by certain key members is being used to support both their own wishes and a means of keeping the forums image ‘pure’. They have very strong opinions on certain topics, the opposite of many such opinions are voiced or such views questioned by myself and others. I feel sure that if I and others were pushing a pro trump/ pro vaccine/ pro lockdown etc line in the hidden forums - then the forum would be at peace. I guess if that were my stance then certain ‘founder members’ and others would likely ignore any intrusion into the main forum by me and rules would not be as strictly enforced. Imo ‘the rules’ should be slightly flexible as in practice they often are. 

Very rigid enforcement doesn’t sit well with the original spirit of this forum imo.

I have no doubt that you have no doubt in your mind that that is the motivation. 

I'll speak about own motivations a bit later. In the meantime I would say "If you were pushing" is part of the problem, rather than the "what" you pushing. Campaigning/proselytizing/crusading posts - especially about a topic that isn't about psi - are problematic in my view in a discussion forum, especially if they are not about the topic related to the forum's subject. Limiting the embedded content was thought of as a way to limit these type of non-discussion but rather, usually, merely "alerting" posts (This is happening! And the media is hiding it! Don't you people realize! This is so evil! Shame on you!) from viewpoints that are absolutely convinced about their own rightness and the other's wrongness. And once, again, have nothing to do with psi.

This, and the activity of the forum getting more monopolized into these off-topic content to begin with, are my personal motivations.

This doesn't mean I have a special status over the founders, but just to address how you think it's because you and others have a particular stance on the topic of vaccines that the founders are motivated the way they are: I was the one who had the initial idea of this forum, and I remember exchanging with Doug was who was the first person I proposed it to. The idea was to have a, yes, "purely" psi forum, and not to have space for that other type of content. Doug was in agreement in spirit, but practically he thought it would be a problem recruiting some of the Skeptiko members who were such much into outside-psi and more usually conspiracy theory or other topics - so that the forum would not get off the ground. So the motivation was always there on my part, rightly or wrongly.

Well so I think I have explained my motivations a bit.

I was the one who had the initial idea of this forum, and I remember exchanging with Doug was who was the first person I proposed it to. The idea was to have a, yes, "purely" psi forum, and not to have space for that other type of content. Doug was in agreement in spirit,

This PM post from Doug (Transtate) seems to contradict what you’ve said here?

“Trancestate
Member

Aug 11, 2017

Myself, I'd like a forum open to almost anything, but with fairly well-defined subforums, similar to what most other message boards offer. I have always disliked Alex's broad categorizations.”


My bolding.

[Ninshub]

Perhaps. I'm referring to discussions with Doug that go further in the past, before the forum was officially set up. His perspective may have changed afterwards. I only went into this bit to explain what my own personal motivations/preferences were and always have been.

Perhaps. I'm referring to discussions with Doug that go further in the past, before the forum was officially set up. His perspective may have changed afterwards. I only went into this bit to explain what my own personal motivations/preferences were and always have been.

In any case, the decision to have the opt-in forums was made on a forum wide level after discussion with everyone participating at the time. It is an elegant and useful solution.

Perhaps. I'm referring to discussions with Doug that go further in the past, before the forum was officially set up. His perspective may have changed afterwards. I only went into this bit to explain what my own personal motivations/preferences were and always have been.

This was from before the forum was set up, and seems pretty clear to me.

It’s from a long Skeptiko PM thread on which the whole secret ‘new forum’ was discussed, we all discussed a lot of things. It’s on page 2 of 89 I think, certainly in the first few pages. 

I’ll be addressing the rest of your post too.

In any case, the decision to have the opt-in forums was made on a forum wide level after discussion with everyone participating at the time. It is an elegant and useful solution.

Yes, the old days, when free speech and democracy seemed paramount. 

Long gone now of course. 

I take it you’re in favour of keeping such an ‘elegant and useful solution’ ?

Yes, the old days, when free speech and democracy seemed paramount. 

Long gone now of course. 

I take it you’re in favour of keeping such an ‘elegant and useful solution’ ?

The idea that the opt-in forums somehow stifle free speech is ludicrous.

I made it clear that I don’t want to discuss politics here and it clearly needs little to no dragging to get you started.

Well stopping a quarrel involves getting two parties that disagree about one thing, to agree to stop.

Nor does it take much for you to grasp the opportunity to once again prompt Ian to moderate at your suggestion.

Sorry that is too cryptic - which Ian?

David