Should we permit interviews on non-core subjects, esp AIDS/HIV?

On this subject, I see Vortex says on Skeptiko that he is hoping to interview Henry Bauer on HIV/AIDS for PsienceQuest.

Please could someone clarify whether this subject would be considered part of this site's remit?

[Laird]

On this subject, I see Vortex says on Skeptiko that he is hoping to interview Henry Bauer on HIV/AIDS for PsienceQuest.

Please could someone clarify whether this subject would be considered part of this site's remit?

Not sure whether that's a question for one person or rather for the community at large. In favour of the proposal, we do have a subforum titled "Alternative Views on Science (Evolution, Cosmology, Etc.)". Against the proposal is that the forum's primary aim is the discussion of scientific research into psi and the paranormal, which this interview would not contribute to. I'm going to be all agnostic and not offer a view, but I hope others will speak up if they do feel strongly. Perhaps this should even be a separate thread? And Chris, perhaps you might ping Vortex by PM to make sure he sees your post?

Not sure whether that's a question for one person or rather for the community at large. In favour of the proposal, we do have a subforum titled "Alternative Views on Science (Evolution, Cosmology, Etc.)". Against the proposal is that the forum's primary aim is the discussion of scientific research into psi and the paranormal, which this interview would not contribute to. I'm going to be all agnostic and not offer a view, but I hope others will speak up if they do feel strongly. Perhaps this should even be a separate thread? And Chris, perhaps you might ping Vortex by PM to make sure he sees your post?

Personally , I don't see the relevance of the topic to what we are all about. 

I think it is reasonable to ask someone who is interested in a particular topic, how it relates to psiencequest, and if doesn't pass the sniff test, than it is not allowed.

I don't think we need to be militant about it, but we should generally have a "relevance filter" of some sort, shouldn't we?

[Laird]

Personally , I don't see the relevance of the topic to what we are all about. 

I think it is reasonable to ask someone who is interested in a particular topic, how it relates to psiencequest, and if doesn't pass the sniff test, than it is not allowed.

I don't think we need to be militant about it, but we should generally have a "relevance filter" of some sort, shouldn't we?

Fair enough - I guess you mean specifically with respect to interviews, which seems to be a fair point. We might (and do) allow more latitude in posting (to the point of having a whole subforum dedicated to "other" stuff), but perhaps we ought to be more strict in ensuring that interviews adhere to "core principles". Am I reading you right?

Fair enough - I guess you mean specifically with respect to interviews, which seems to be a fair point. We might (and do) allow more latitude in posting (to the point of having a whole subforum dedicated to "other" stuff), but perhaps we ought to be more strict in ensuring that interviews adhere to "core principles". Am I reading you right?

Yes. You have it.

I think content like interviews are special in a way. They tend to define who we are.

Not to bring up a sore subject (for some) but this (seemingly WAY off topic interviews) is what I started me thinking Skeptiko was going "off the rails". It was redefining what the community was all about, and is when I started to bow-out because it was no longer central to my interests. Then of course there was also the caustic environment there that was developing... 

Why wouldn't an interview with this guy be relevant..? He's anti-mainstream, past editor of the JSE, and believes in the Loch Ness Monster... seems cookie enough to be on here.

What's the subject matter? AIDs/HIV? What is his position/message?

I left SF because Bailey started telling people what was and what was not allowed to be discussed, and stopping new members posting because they had different points of view to him. When I raised the issue, he refused to even acknowledge it. Then AT stopped me posting. Others got stopped from posting. The main forums got deleted. And here we are...

SF failure was never to do with too wide a range of subject matter and opinions, it was about too narrow a range of subject matter and opinions because of inept and ridiculous moderation, and attempts to publicly punish members.

Someone needs to Sheppard the thing. 

Its like a garden, you need to tend it and not just let everything grow wild. 

There will always be some who disagree with a particular choice, but that doesn't mean choices don't need to be made.

[Ninshub]

Fair enough - I guess you mean specifically with respect to interviews, which seems to be a fair point. We might (and do) allow more latitude in posting (to the point of having a whole subforum dedicated to "other" stuff), but perhaps we ought to be more strict in ensuring that interviews adhere to "core principles". Am I reading you right?

I'm with jkmac on this one.