Forum Rules and Guidelines Discussion

The forum is in danger of becoming Authoritarian. 

As I stated in a recent post, I have no wish to destroy this forum.

Oh, there’s no doubt that I’ve become very frustrated at how things have been going not only here on the forum, but also in the wider world. And the time has come for me to go, but before I go, I wanted to give you some uneasy impressions I now have of PsiQuest. 

I freely admit to posting heavily in the hidden forums, this was partly from my larger frustration with how I could see things going in the world around me, but also from how things were going on this site - imo they might have been a conscious reaction to the latter. It was a way of fighting back, venting. 

I felt I was being blocked from expressing my own opinions when I tried on a couple of occasions to counter Kamarling’s posts on the main site. I only wish we could see all these posts now, so as to get the whole picture, but these posts of mine were deleted by Ian’s (Ninshub) hand, along with his posts (the first time at least) without consulting any other ‘admins’. (Or owners, Mods, Founders, or any other names the rule makers go by)

I don’t suppose he took a copy of them so that we could have evidence so as to see exactly how events unfolded? No, of course not. Things started turning sour in the past two years, with videos I posted in good faith being moved to the other side, including a Tom Campbell video, which is totally ridiculous. I’ve now been temporarily banned by Ninshub (acting alone)twice after disputes were ‘handled’ by him in this manner. I admit to swearing at him alone the first time and at the admin team generally the latter, my friend Laird too. It is seen as unacceptable by the admin team to do so, and I would agree, but I did so only because I felt that I was being bullied, and had no other way to express my frustration. Childish and sad - yes. 

I wish we could all have access to the posts which led up to both my swearing events. That is why I think this sort of thing should be more transparent! I think it used to be, certainly it was the intention when Psi Quest was formed. 

The second time came after I made a complaint to ‘admin’ using the ‘report’ facility. Frankly I was amazed when Laird came back and said that the group of administrators agreed that I was at fault. 

He wrote in a later post…”In any case, posts in this thread were moved by general agreement of active moderators/founders, not by decree of Kamarling.”

Is it likely that any of them are going to go against a fellow ‘founder member’, one who remains a part of the ‘inner sanctum’? Of course not. 

The post which led me to use the report button (for the first time ever I think) was when Kamarling posted…

“See, this is the reason for the ignore ... hijack a thread to push the anti-vax crap.”

This was total nonsense, I had never even mentioned the vaccines, I was making a point about twisting facts and bias, which was the same basic topic that Kamarling’s post was a rant about as shown by Wikipedia. But Kamarling associates all these things including anti-vaxxers with me - he makes this ludicrous statement.Yet Laird and others agreed and my posts were removed to the opt-in forums where no one can see them. 

Of course Chuck makes a rare appearance to add his 2c, with…

“Is no one taking the bait in the opt in forums enough so that the trolling has to infect the main area of the forum?”

This of course received an immediate ‘like’ from Ian.  Having posted for many years in both Skeptiko and this forum, it is obvious that I am not a troll, and it’s simply disingenuous to suggest that I am. 

According to Laird, there are four people who together make decisions in the forum. Except Ninshub seems keen on banning me on his own, without consultation. Is this fair?  

They are Laird, Ninshub ,Kamarling and Typoz. 

Ian has recently taken to calling some founder members the forum ‘owners’. This is a eyebrow raising development.

So Kamarling makes this ludicrous and false statement, yet he is backed up by at least a majority, if not all of them. 

At least three of the four would be very happy to see the opt-in forums disappear completely, Ninshub, Kamarling and Typoz. It’s perhaps time to have a vote on the matter, but this should not be done surreptitiously.

Ian, you seem to be particularly upset at the idea that I made public something about your personal ‘facts’. I am not even sure of anything about you, only that you previously went by the name Ian Gordon and I only have an idea of how you make a living. Wow, how insensitive if I made that public, (sarcasm) but I don’t even have proof that I did  - do you? 

More guilt without proof? More transparency is needed. 

I’m sorry that it has come to this, but it is what it is - I’m being true to myself. Things will unfold quickly over the coming months and years, and perhaps my stance here and in the wider world will be vindicated, or perhaps proven misguided.

I will leave you with a statement from 2020, in which Ian wrote…



“The forum wouldn't be the same without you, Steve, and again I don't see you as someone on the "outside". You're colorful, but that's an added quality that not everybody brings and is greatly needed.

You're interested in all kinds of subjects, in all facets - the scientific side, the social-political, the spiritual, etc. etc. - you're really an incredibly well-rounded forum member - and I'm sure person as well.

Be well, my friend”

Indeed, be well, all of you. 

And the time has come for me to go ...

Another one! C'mon guys, there's no need. 

Stan, I hope you'll reconsider. I've enjoyed getting to know you a little.

Yes this isn't appropriate David. What justification is there for going into, or furthering, a political topic on a very thread where we're discussing those kinds of topics being off the main forum in the first place?!?

You've said yourself you agree with the idea of politics not being a good fit for a psi forum.

Just because Kamarling said something that got you going, do you not have the willpower to control that instinct to answer back? Or at the very least answering somewhere else in the opt-in forums, or through attempted PM?

For what it is worth, I think both Kamarling and Stan make positive contributions to this forum.
Removing further political posts from this thread (or maybe from the whole visible forum) may be the best possible solution.

This is absolutely ridiculous !! I'm not aware of what's gone on behind the scenes and I'm not blaming anyone, certainly not Ian and laird, although I have some slight differences with Laird about posting issues (copyright etc) but that's understandable.  

I regard most people here as friends, including Dave and Stan. We can have disagreements, surely, without clearing off forever. The forum is already quiet enough without these two quitting for good. I can see there's issues but are they not resolvable ?

We have much more in common with each other than we have in disagreement.

[Ninshub]

I’ve now been temporarily banned by Ninshub (acting alone)twice after disputes were ‘handled’ by him in this manner. I admit to swearing at him alone the first time and at the admin team generally the latter, my friend Laird too. It is seen as unacceptable by the admin team to do so, and I would agree, but I did so only because I felt that I was being bullied, and had no other way to express my frustration. Childish and sad - yes. 

(...)

According to Laird, there are four people who together make decisions in the forum. Except Ninshub seems keen on banning me on his own, without consultation. Is this fair?  

They are Laird, Ninshub ,Kamarling and Typoz. 

A moderator is allowed to ban a member of his or her own accord. It's preferable to do so while discussing with the other moderator and founders, but sometimes that person isn't available and a situation occurs where there is need for some immediate action. In any event, if a ban occurs there is discussion immediately following and it's always theoretically possible to change course. I was agreeable to reduce your second and last ban from 1 week to 1 day. The first time was 1 week. These are incredibly mild in my opinion.

I don't know of any other forums I've ever frequented where 10% of the behavior you've engaged in (like saying "f - off with your pathetic rules!" in answer to a moderator asking you to curtail your behavior and bringing it in accord with the existing rules) is deemed acceptable by a forum admin or moderator, and doesn't usually follow by an outright life-time ban. There is now a long pattern on your side of unrecognized entitlement in this fashion and to judge any moderation in regards to your behaviour (which is done because that behaviour is going against the well-established and transparent forum rules) as an impingement on your right to freedom or interpreting it as a nefarious way of censoring you and your views. You are always the victim, and the others your oppressors without just cause. The fact that are you continuing to cry out "Authoritarian!" in these latest threads seems to demonstrate there has been no introspection on your own part in these events. This despite Laird repeatedly engaging with you after the bans and through this whole psychodrama.

Also, the behaviours towards myself and others that you engaged in and that brought about my decision to ban you those two times (in part because I was the moderator that was active at the moment, and the other moderator wasn't available) were judged as unacceptable by all the other founders.

Not a moderator, but I completely support Ninshub's actions. 

I'm a member of another forum that deals with a specific type of musical instrument. On that forum there are a LOT of rules and they are very strictly enforced, and yet all the members seem to be able to follow the rules and have fruitful discussions. 

I don't think the rules here are difficult to understand. And I don't think they are arbitrary or in any way heavy handed. Following the rules is the price of admission. This is not a public greenway. It is a private space. There is no guarantee here to be able to use speech in any way one choses. Many sites exist that allow anyone to say anything.

Try here:

https://www.4chan.org/

An unfortunate aspect of most discussion boards (and social media) is the tendency for participants to get caught up in fights with each other.  I would guess that these fights have an element of jockeying for authority.

I try not to engage in fights, and like some will withdraw for a period of time to reflect on my position and also whether there is any value in further engagement.

I do find the ignore button useful, because it is just me determining how I want to spend my time.

But there is a choice in determining what I want to ignore, versus what others might want to read.

The hidden, opt-in forums seem to causing some angst.  If the forum wants to have rules prohibiting abuse and rudeness and possibly prohibited content (e.g. no holocaust denial is permitted) I would not be concerned.

However the rule change was to limit how many links to external content may be included in the content.

If there is a concern with "crap-flooding" then maybe specific rules could address this.

However if i want to present a reasoned argument for something and I am linking to content in mainstream news, then the limiting of links appears unwarranted and prevents my meaningful participation.

I find some unfortunate irony in the way that psi evidence is ignored by the mainstream and that skeptics deny there is any evidence, now in a critical area of society we see replacement of scientific process with "consensus" and scientism, and on this discussion board an unwillingness to present and discuss certain evidence.

I understand the moderation is challenging, but replacing it with an arbitrary algorithm is not progress.

Please consider removing your links rule and having guidelines specific to preventing abuse and spamming/crap-flooding.

Please also consider how discussions related to what society considers acceptable and scientific also relates to psi studies.