The question of political / conspiracy theory content

I'm really sorry to appear obstinate on this (and I'm speaking for myself only) but I would have to say that I'm against it. My feeling is that Skeptiko lost its focus from the time that Alex started pushing subjects like atheists being secret satanists and other crazy conspiracies. The political threads also became dominant - probably naturally as a consequence of Trump and Brexit coming to the fore but a lot of bad feeling was generated and people left because of it. I thought it would be back to business as usual after the elections but it wasn't. Now Skeptiko is all but dead to many of us who saw it as a haven for interesting and open discussion about parapsychology. 

Having a splinter group for CT and Politics (those two will inevitably blend together) will split and dilute the focus of the forum. People will be curious as to what is happening in those private sub-forums and will join. Others will come along with little or no interest in the original topics while potential newbies might be put off if people keep referring to subjects being discussed in private groups.

I think this is well put. While I understand that CT and politics have their place, and their relationships to the metaphysical, I personally would love to see the forum be almost exclusively about paranormal and metaphysical stuff, research and the like. I don't want to push that too hard, because I also understand that there are lots of people who like to discuss those things along with their relationships to the aforementioned phenomena. However, I have the same fear as others here that it could "devolve" ultimately into political discussion, especially in times when paranormal discussion may be stale or slow. There's always something going on that allows people to talk about politics, and they're just inflammatory enough to garner a lot of attention. Same goes for CT. Again, they have a place, and I get that. I suppose after typing all this out I'm really a bit torn about what is best.

... Same goes for CT. Again, they have a place, and I get that. I suppose after typing all this out I'm really a bit torn about what is best.

I know what you mean. Sometimes those subjects are really interesting. I went through a phase in the 90's when I was into ancient civilisations, alternative archaeology, sacred geometry and half a dozen related subjects. I joined a couple of forums at the time and eventually satisfied my interest and moved on. The point being that I joined forums dedicated to those subjects.

Now, if anyone cares to look back a few pages, I said to Chuck that I have no problem discussing all manner of subjects which overlap with our core focus. The CIA psi program was the example under discussion and doubtless there are many other examples. Similarly with religion: there is bound to be an overlap but I don't think we should have a sub-forum to discuss religion, especially when it slides into fundamentalist topics such as God and his angels being at war with Satan. 

Simply put: I don't support a ban on CTs, etc., being discussed but I do think we should encourage members to use some common sense, observe the context and not derail thread for the sake of some pet theory or for proselytising a particular religious view. Just as we wouldn't expect our atheist members to bombard us with anti-religious links and videos.

[Laird]

I'm really sorry to appear obstinate on this (and I'm speaking for myself only) but I would have to say that I'm against it. My feeling is that Skeptiko lost its focus from the time that Alex started pushing subjects like atheists being secret satanists and other crazy conspiracies. The political threads also became dominant - probably naturally as a consequence of Trump and Brexit coming to the fore but a lot of bad feeling was generated and people left because of it. I thought it would be back to business as usual after the elections but it wasn't. Now Skeptiko is all but dead to many of us who saw it as a haven for interesting and open discussion about parapsychology. 

Having a splinter group for CT and Politics (those two will inevitably blend together) will split and dilute the focus of the forum. People will be curious as to what is happening in those private sub-forums and will join. Others will come along with little or no interest in the original topics while potential newbies might be put off if people keep referring to subjects being discussed in private groups.

Oh, Kamarling, I very much hope that you will reconsider. Here's why:

There are well-respected members of this forum on both sides of the issue: those who want politics/CTs to be viable topics here, and those who don't. This proposal is as far back as we can push the former in a compromise. There is nowhere further back for their position to be pushed other than a blanket ban on political/CT topics not related to the forum's core subject matter - and that's not a compromise, it's a win-lose scenario. Please, let's try to find a compromise, and not force this to be a matter of winners and losers. In a compromise, not everybody gets exactly what they want - but everybody gets a little bit of what they want. You (and others) don't want political/CT discussions at all, but others want such discussions to be unrestricted. Can we try to meet in the middle (even though, as I've said, this is far from the middle for those who advocate these discussions, and this is the best possible compromise for those on your side of the fence)?

I should also add that there is at least one person from Skeptiko with whom I'm in contact via PM who refuses to join our forum unless these subjects are valid topics for discussion - so it's not only a matter of "politics/CTs will drive off (some) members", it is also a matter of "banning discussion of politics/CTs will drive off (some) members".

[Laird]

I would suggest some kind of outside-of-this-thread alert be made available, maybe as another thread directing people to this one, for all those who won't be following this thread and seeing this post.

OK, I'll create a new thread.

Oh, Kamarling, I very much hope that you will reconsider. Here's why:

...

I should also add that there is at least one person from Skeptiko with whom I'm in contact via PM who refuses to join our forum unless these subjects are valid topics for discussion - so it's not only a matter of "poltiics/CTs will drive off (some) members", it is also a matter of "banning discussion of politics/CTs will drive off (some) members".

That puts me in a difficult position. I don't want people to stay away because the focus of this site is more narrow than they would want, nor would I want for others to stay away because they what they really wanted want is a purely psi-based discussion. My compromise was to allow CTs and politics but with a sensitivity to the context. I still don't think that is unreasonable. Also, I want sceptics to feel welcome here and I have a feeling that yet another CT talking shop would put them off. I may be wrong about that and they might love to come along and debunk the crazy conspiracies as well as the psi nonsense. If so and if that's the way it develops, then I doubt that I will be around for long.

[Laird]

That puts me in a difficult position. I don't want people to stay away because the focus of this site is more narrow than they would want, nor would I want for others to stay away because they what they really wanted want is a purely psi-based discussion. My compromise was to allow CTs and politics but with a sensitivity to the context. I still don't think that is unreasonable. Also, I want sceptics to feel welcome here and I have a feeling that yet another CT talking shop would put them off. I may be wrong about that and they might love to come along and debunk the crazy conspiracies as well as the psi nonsense. If so and if that's the way it develops, then I doubt that I will be around for long.

Are you maybe willing to view the proposed forums, which members would have to opt-in to, as being in some sense separate and distinct from the rest of the Psience Quest forums? Nobody who didn't want to view or participate in those forums - including you - need even contemplate their existence, let alone have to be exposed to their content. They needn't have any impact at all on the rest of the forums - nobody who wanted to discuss the core topics need even be aware of them.

The argument being made by some against that possibility is that if we allow it there, political posts will come to dominate the forum, distracting attention from the main focus (psi/parapsychology/the paranormal/extended consciousness), and causing members to feel overwhelmed by the non-core discussions to the point that they leave the board in frustration.

I guess I just don't see that as likely, so long as moderation stays vigilant. I'm a member of forums that concerns topics ranging from sea ice to cartoons; all of them have a lively off-topic sub-forum that cover ground including politics, and none have lost focus. And it's not as if we'll still have a paternalistic single owner/operator deliberately pushing things in a given direction.

Are you maybe willing to view the proposed forums, which members would have to opt-in to, as being in some sense separate and distinct from the rest of the Psience Quest forums? Nobody who didn't want to view or participate in those forums - including you - need even contemplate their existence, let alone have to be exposed to their content. They needn't have any impact at all on the rest of the forums - nobody who wanted to discuss the core topics need even be aware of them.

Just because people aren't aware of them doesn't mean they don't affect the entire forum. For one thing, there is still a need for moderation - how to handle that could have a broader impact in  terms of the need to have others involved. Or if the discussions involve content which may have legal or ethical consequences, it has the potential to damage the reputation of the entire forum.

[Laird]

Just because people aren't aware of them doesn't mean they don't affect the entire forum. For one thing, there is still a need for moderation

I've already volunteered.

how to handle that could have a broader impact in  terms of the need to have others involved.

Pretty sure it won't take more than a single moderator.

Or if the discussions involve content which may have legal or ethical consequences, it has the potential to damage the reputation of the entire forum.

You could say the same about the content in any other subforum - and worse, because these subforums would be invisible to the general public and even registered members who haven't opted in.

I'm quite confused, Typoz, because these seem like relatively minor concerns.

Laird, I'd like to share something in private if I may.