The question of political / conspiracy theory content

I guess I just don't see the need for CT or politics section if Skeptiko is already covering that?

I didn't think we were trying to compete with Skeptiko, just provide an alternative forum now that C+S/S&E/CD are being deleted?

Skptiko does not allow members to create threads on politics. I tried to create a new trump thread and it was closed.

You tried to create a new trump thread - and the entire forum was shut down!
Well, two whole forums: Extended Consciousness & Spirituality + Consciousness & Science. (someone else had posted in the other about Pam Reynolds). Skeptiko does not allow members to create threads on NDEs.

Wow, I don't feel that left out now... Welcome to the Brotherhood of Insufficient Privileges!

Laird,

I would suggest that we keep all topics that are not related to consciousness/NDEs/ψ/paranormal phenomena/UFOs (plus maybe bad science because the is a connection)off topic for the time being. We can always relax the rules later.

I would suggest we keep all politics - including global warming, Trump, LBGT, intergenerational sex, Pizzagate, off the forum. We have all joined in with such topics on SKEPTIKO, and we can see the end result.

As moderator, you could always bend the rules a bit if it seemed appropriate, but lets start out with some limits.

You are the moderator here, and I hope that when you need to act, you simply act in order to protect the forum.

I think Alex is on the way to wrecking his forum, and we have a responsibility to maintain the core conversation.

David

Re: your last sentence-
A discussion about some psi topic which is probably located in a relevant topical folder and which happens upon a particular associated possible conspiracy theory IS NOT the same thing as a whole section of the website dedicated to the vast smelly swamp of conspiracy theories. There is a huge difference. 

Come on. It's not that complicated folks.

And substitute the word politics for CT in the above sentence and you have a workable solution for that too.

There is a difference, but it is very hard to police that distinction. I guess we are all exhausted with politics and CT's, so why don't we start with them excluded and then bring them back later if desired?

David

[Laird]

You are the moderator here

Hi Dave, I'm glad you're here. Just a brief response to this: I am far from the only moderator here, there are several others. We have chosen not to identify ourselves as such so as to try to avoid the possibility that people feel loath to comment in a thread where there's an admin/moderator present.

FWIW: I started out agnostic on the subject of this thread but am slowly forming a view. I think that probably we will, in the end, need a poll with various options to allow folks to pick their preference.

I think Alex is on the way to wrecking his forum, and we have a responsibility to maintain the core conversation.

Yes, it is very sad. It's all about what Alex wants these days, he doesn't cares what the community wants - and that's a recipe for disaster.

It seems to me that there are two approaches to moderation, one being democratic and laissez-faire and the other being authoritarian and strict. I think most would prefer the former and so would I - with certain provisos as I've mentioned previously:

Posts containing personal attacks and hurtful insults should be deleted.

Off-topic conversations should be given a chance to see where they are headed (i.e. - is there an overlap with psi, etc?) but locked if they continue to undermine the primary focus of the forum. In that case, members could be invited to continue by PM or, if it becomes possible, by private, multi-participant conversation.

I agree Kam and well said.

Max has a point David... Why didn't you inform the community that Alex intended to nuke the forum? It's not like he would care, since his disconnection from anything besides his podcast was now more blantant than ever. You allowed this to take us by surprise, and in the process, opened the door for several of us being banned (by a man who spouted things about "NDEs being about love" in interviews but lashed out when exposed to criticism) when we responded in the only possible way. I really wish to avoid that sort of secretive BS in the future.

[Laird]

Max has a point David... Why didn't you inform the community that Alex intended to nuke the forum?

Without wanting to speak for David, he did say on Skeptiko that whilst Alex had broached the matter with him privately, he (David) had been expecting to be able to have more of a conversation with Alex about it - but Alex then acted suddenly and without warning.