Rules update: new policy (#10) and its immediate implementation

[Laird]

A new policy has been added to our forum rules and guidelines:

10. Perpetrators of serious harms and their supporters are unwelcome here.

They will be removed if/when discovered.

Examples of serious harms include but are not limited to:

• Grievous forms of personal abuse and exploitation, e.g., active paedophilia; domestic abuse.
  
• Systematic oppression and any underlying ideology, e.g., (neo)Nazism; Zionism.
  
• Wars of aggression, e.g., Russia's war on Ukraine.
  

Perpetration includes active participation, e.g., as a soldier in a war of aggression.

Support includes but is not limited to:

• Adherence to a systematically oppressive ideology.
  
• Written or verbal expressions, whether publicly or privately, and whether on this board or elsewhere.
  
• Knowingly and deliberately supplying money to, or engaging in trade that benefits, the perpetrators of the harm so as to perpetuate it.
  

Mitigating factors include regret, reform, and redress.

The determination of serious harms, their perpetrators and supporters, and whether or not they are sufficiently reformed, is at the discretion of board moderators.

Caveat: Deliberately excluded here - even though it is abhorrent - is support in the form of beneficial trade for the systematic oppression of animals in farming, entertainment, sport, tourism, and medicine, etc, only because almost all of our current members would be excluded if that form of support was included.

Consistent with this policy, the following members will be removed via a permanent ban:

• @Vortex, for supporting paedophilia (on Skeptiko, as referenced here^[1] and confirmed in recent private messages; note that Vortex denies being a paedophile himself) and the aggressors in a genocidal war (here and by private message).
  
• @David001, for supporting the aggressors in a genocidal war, and a regime with a fascist agenda (here for both).
  
• @Jim_Smith, for supporting a regime with a fascist agenda (here among many other examples).
  
• @Valmar, for supporting a regime with a fascist agenda (here and here). Given his qualifications that he "engage[s] in politics less and less" and that he'd "rather watch from the sidelines to see where it all goes", he has the opportunity to avoid removal by affirming his opposition to that regime in a new thread in the opt-in politics forum.
  

These members have roughly forty-eight hours to finalise their affairs by posting any concluding on-topic posts in any public threads, and sending any concluding messages in any private conversations, after which the bans will be implemented. They should note that anything that they post is now subject to moderation, and that posts or threads attempting to defend their support for these harms will not be approved.

The interviews conducted by Vortex will remain and will not be deleted, subject to future reconsideration.

[1] It goes without saying that I regret providing cover for his unacceptable views back then, and for not correcting that error until now.

I have to admit I think this is a bad idea.

Creating a politics forum and then judging people for posting in it seems rather dangerous as a precedent?

I’m shocked reading this description of members I’ve debated with on several occasions. I want to be absolutely clear that I take complete and unequivocal distance from anyone involved in the kinds of serious harms outlined in the new rule, and I fully support banning such behaviour and ideologies from the forum. Even though I often represent a minority viewpoint here, I’ve always assumed that discussions took place within a framework of basic human decency. This rule is therefore important and necessary, and I support the moderators’ effort to enforce it.

I never wanted a Politics forum or a Conspiracy forum, but these were created.

People posted their opinions, not expecting that their posts would lead to their banning.

I can understand the desire to take action for what one believes in, but there must also be a space for discussion.

I however don't believe Psience Quest needs to be that space, and as such I'd recommend removing the aforementioned forums instead of banning people for expressing the opinions they were invited to express.

I’m shocked reading this description of members I’ve debated with on several occasions. I want to be absolutely clear that I take complete and unequivocal distance from anyone involved in the kinds of serious harms outlined in the new rule, and I fully support banning such behaviour and ideologies from the forum. Even though I often represent a minority viewpoint here, I’ve always assumed that discussions took place within a framework of basic human decency. This rule is therefore important and necessary, and I support the moderators’ effort to enforce it.

I think it might be worth seeing the posts that are linked to if you haven't looked at them. You'll have to join the respective sub-forums to do so. I joined to see the posts then un-joined, as the opening post startled me as well in its accusations.

My politics are probably closer to yours and @Laird 's but those threatened with banning for politics don't seem like bad people to me, and have contributed extensively to discussion here.

I never wanted a Politics forum or a Conspiracy forum, but these were created.

People posted their opinions, not expecting that their posts would lead to their banning.

I can understand the desire to take action for what one believes in, but there must also be a space for discussion.

I however don't believe Psience Quest needs to be that space, and as such I'd recommend removing the aforementioned forums instead of banning people for expressing the opinions they were invited to express.

I think historically, those forums were offered as a sort of concession or bribe to avoid an exodus of various members en masse. However, so much time has passed and membership moved on that the initial arguments no longer carry much weight. I'd simply remove (or lock) the hidden forums and leave it at that.