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

I think that the best solution to this conflict are the same as the solution to the conflict on Skeptiko in 2017: We should split the forum into two. It's easy to create a forum for free on www.boardhost.com Everyone that will get banned because of this policy or who do not want to be a member of this forum because of the policy can join that forum instead. Laird's policy can be implemented on this forum and those that accept it can continue as members here, and perhaps also become members of the other forum too if they wants to. That way everyone can get what they wants.

@InterestedinPsi 
Since you claimed that your latest post will be your last post on the forum, perhaps you won't login on your account anymore, so I wanted to tell you that I has sent an direct message to you.

To @InterestedinPsi and everyone else that considers leaving this forum:
Please don't leave the forum permanently before this whole issue has been resolved. I understand that you do not want to continue as members if this new policy are implemented but it are not clear whether it will be or not. Perhaps it will be decided that Laird will leave instead. I think we should all wait with leaving the forum until we have all reached an decision together about the forums future.

I absolutely endorse your comment - I totally agree.

A few days ago when it seemed I was told I was to be expelled, I described this forum to ChatGPT and asked for a list of fora with these characteristics. Pscience Quest came out at the head of the list. It would be a tragedy if this forum dissolved.

I would like to point out something else. Back in 2022 I marched in a demonstration that was against war. I am very much against the war that currently blazes in Eastern Europe. My long term partner, who started life behind the Iron Curtain, thinks the same way. I don't want to start to explain further - at least without Laird's explicit permission - but rest assured, the situation in Eastern Europe is considerably more complex than people here seem to realise.

David

I think that the best solution to this conflict are the same as the solution to the conflict on Skeptiko in 2017: We should split the forum into two. It's easy to create a forum for free on www.boardhost.com Everyone that will get banned because of this policy or who do not want to be a member of this forum because of the policy can join that forum instead. Laird's policy can be implemented on this forum and those that accept it can continue as members here, and perhaps also become members of the other forum too if they wants to. That way everyone can get what they wants.

I'm afraid, it won't work this way, for two reasons:

1) Skeptiko forum was quite densely populated in 2017... More than enough people to fill two separate forums, with each of them having enough members to function further.

2) The memberships of the two forums overlapped each other significantly - most people posted on both Skeptiko and Psience Quest, and were welcome on both forums.

Now, the situation is substantially different in both aspects:

1) There are very few members who are still active here, and if they are split, there will not enough people to maintain a semblance of discussion on any of the few forums.

2) Many people would only be able to be active only on one of the forums, and unwelcome on the other, so their activity would be very limited.

Unfortunately, Psience Quest is probably the last paranormal forum which is at least somewhat active and significant. And, by losing any more members, it will undo itself. We must this counterproductive hostility now, else we are done.

I think that the best solution to this conflict are the same as the solution to the conflict on Skeptiko in 2017: We should split the forum into two. It's easy to create a forum for free on www.boardhost.com Everyone that will get banned because of this policy or who do not want to be a member of this forum because of the policy can join that forum instead. Laird's policy can be implemented on this forum and those that accept it can continue as members here, and perhaps also become members of the other forum too if they wants to. That way everyone can get what they wants.

Are you willing to maintain that other forum?

The challenge is that it would likely take more work than most are able to contribute.

I also would not want @Laird to leave, even if he's no longer maintaining the site. Same with @Ninshub - would rather have him stick around.

I personally wouldn't mind joining both forums, but I think it would be impossible to upkeep membership in both.

I think that the best solution to this conflict are the same as the solution to the conflict on Skeptiko in 2017: We should split the forum into two. It's easy to create a forum for free on www.boardhost.com Everyone that will get banned because of this policy or who do not want to be a member of this forum because of the policy can join that forum instead. Laird's policy can be implemented on this forum and those that accept it can continue as members here, and perhaps also become members of the other forum too if they wants to. That way everyone can get what they wants.

My gut feeling is that even your very creative solution would still probably wreck our forum(s). People would get obsessed by "forum dynamics" rather than discussing phenomena outside the forums themselves - such as Michael Levin's ideas. I mean just when something really new and interesting appears, we are dissipating ourselves on forum dynamics!

David

I have a disagreement with Laird as to Valmar being included in the list of bans, as I don't think he shares the same history of socio-political statements that go beyond the pale, and I have enjoyed exchanging him a lot when I have. But my first priority has to go to Laird's tolerance and comfort in feeling able to continue. To Valmar: I'm sorry about that. I would hope Laird and you can get something fixed there. I'm open to being part of that conversation if need be.

Well... being slandered with vitriolic and presumptive language such as "filthy fascist apologist" tends to burn bridges pretty efficiently, along with having posts held ransom for reasons unrelated to the post itself.

Makes me look rather coldly upon Laird ~ given that my posts are moderated, only you and Laird can probably see them.

[Laird]

you've [...] stated that it would be permissible for someone to express support for Bush and Cheney here

No, I've stated the complete opposite.

There is no contradiction.

For all your railing, you have not identified a single "absurdity" in this policy, nor anything "unreasonable" about it.

You are not attempting good-faith understanding, but have jumped almost immediately to bad-faith casting of aspersions.

I have no access to the private forum

Here's how to freely and immediately obtain it.

you've moved it without justification.

The justification (#9).

I argued for the absurdity of your policy given how strongly contested such claims are

You've acknowledged one serious harm already: hundreds of thousands of deaths (so far) knowingly and needlessly caused by a deliberate political choice. The list I later supplied establishes the moral character that explains such a choice (other political choices also of a clearly sadistic nature could be listed, but, again, it's not my role to point out the obvious). Everything in that list is either established fact or easily supportable through primary sources, your deflection to "point-of-view-pushing journalism" (a point of view in itself) notwithstanding. It paints a clear picture in the aggregate, your quibbles about some of it being "contested" also notwithstanding: that serious harm is not an aberration, and we can expect more to come. Support for this individual is support for serious harm. Full stop.

Your "argument" has failed. Move on.

The interpretation and enforcement of the policy is fundamentally a matter of Laird's personal opinion and politics

It's a matter of the judgement of board moderators, who determine the facts in making those judgements, as is the case for all moderation decisions.

I happen to be the moderator responsible for this particular policy.

It's richly ironic that you complain of Trump's narcissism when your whole hysterical moralistic preening fit here is one massive exercise in stubborn, inflexible narcissism that leaves you completely deaf to what everyone around you is saying. Even more ironic is that it's exactly the kind of shrill censorious behavior that you've decided to ruin this forum with that makes people at large so despise those in your political camp and seriously incline to vote for the likes of Trump.

This will be my last post on this sorry website. I hope you feel good about sending your years of work on this place up in flames so you could feel like an ever-so-moral sanctimonious prig for a day or two.

I expect that the irony of the righteous indignation with which you express all of that will be lost on you. 👍

Many who voted that way for that reason will by now have realised their error, which is inevitable when opposition to harm becomes the "real" harm and the reason to vote against those who actually want to make things better rather than harm you. Of course, there is scope for much more ambition in making things better, which also partly explains those votes.

I also of course understand the optics. It's unfortunate that people can't see past them. In any case, I'm not personally soliciting votes, so tactical decisions around optics are of less concern to me.

I'm afraid, it won't work this way, for two reasons:

1) Skeptiko forum was quite densely populated in 2017... More than enough people to fill two separate forums, with each of them having enough members to function further.

2) The memberships of the two forums overlapped each other significantly - most people posted on both Skeptiko and Psience Quest, and were welcome on both forums.

Now, the situation is substantially different in both aspects:

1) There are very few members who are still active here, and if they are split, there will not enough people to maintain a semblance of discussion on any of the few forums.

2) Many people would only be able to be active only on one of the forums, and unwelcome on the other, so their activity would be very limited.

Unfortunately, Psience Quest is probably the last paranormal forum which is at least somewhat active and significant. And, by losing any more members, it will undo itself. We must this counterproductive hostility now, else we are done.

I agree, but if everyone supplies their email addresses I can see several ways forward. I know your email address but I don't want to post it here without your permission. I don't want us to discuss things much here because I presume the moderator is reading everything on this forum.

@Valmar I haven't looked at the reddit forum you mentioned. In your opinion is it a reasonable alternative to what we had here - because we could simply all move over there!

David


David

It does seem a tad unfair that even those of us who've financially contributed to keeping this site up have so little say regarding what seems to be something which has decisive ramifications.

It will be sad to see the active membership effectively reduced to the point it's unclear if there's a way to keep the forums going.

Even trying to recruit new members seems to enter into uncertainty as the new rule seems to be rather arbitrary. Today it seems it is okay to say you eat meat, but tomorrow this may no longer be the case?

I wouldn't read into it that much. It very much seems like some of the opinions being voiced were ones that I would definitely not agree with and don't mind not being seen in my day to day life, but that's why I said there never should have been an avenue for them being expressed in the first place. If they were being expressed in any other thread I would be saying all is fair get rid of them, but again political threads are always a cesspool and if the opinions are only being talked about there then that's no reason to ban people unless the ideas are truly abhorrent (which I'm not saying they aren't, but to me it sees like only the one supporting pedophilia really deserves to be nuked)

And I definitely don't want to downplay the work our moderators and admin have put into the successful running of the site for so many years. I've learnt so many things, been subjected to so much existential dread and had so many nice conversations because of their effort. But then what's the point of being part of a forum if you can't disagree with how it's run sometimes.