The question of political / conspiracy theory content

Cutting some pretty fine slices of cheese there, Tad.

I don't agree. I have said that there is bound to be overlap but just ask to bear in mind the context. 

I want to make a couple of things clear. Although I'm one of the founding members, I do not speak for all. I'm expressing my own opinions and that is why this thread was started - so that anyone could do the same. No decision has been made on what subjects are permitted or discouraged. One of the decisions that has been made is that banning will be a last resort except for known or obvious trolls. 

When you created your forum it was, I believe, to be free-ranging and possibly unmoderated. We had a more focused vision in that we wanted to create the kind of forum that Skeptiko used to be before Alex started to steer the debate in other directions. We prefer a laissez-faire approach to moderation but there will be moderation. A statement of our purpose and aims is being prepared right now. 

If you want the kind of forum that you created, I personally don't see why you want to impose your vision on us. Keep it open, you are still welcome here as, I hope, we would be welcome there.

What about discussions of bigfoot or other cryptids? Pretty far out. Not a lot of physical evidence. Allowed? Not allowed? Fairies? Trolls?

This brings us back to the purpose of this forum.

Wondering about NDEs or cryptids to me is rather different than CTs which accuse people of actual crimes, and on Skeptiko at least people feel comfortable naming names based on "evidence" as silly as showing a picture of Lt. Aquino in some Satanist costume or Alex insisting that anyone could see the truth via Google Image Search.

If you want the kind of forum that you created, I personally don't see why you want to impose your vision on us. Keep it open, you are still welcome here as, I hope, we would be welcome there.

And my offer to provide some monetary upkeep support to both forums remains.

I still can't help but see that as the ideal solution...

I don't agree. I have said that there is bound to be overlap but just ask to bear in mind the context. 

I want to make a couple of things clear. Although I'm one of the founding members, I do not speak for all. I'm expressing my own opinions and that is why this thread was started - so that anyone could do the same. No decision has been made on what subjects are permitted or discouraged. One of the decisions that has been made is that banning will be a last resort except for known or obvious trolls. 

When you created your forum it was, I believe, to be free-ranging and possibly unmoderated. We had a more focused vision in that we wanted to create the kind of forum that Skeptiko used to be before Alex started to steer the debate in other directions. We prefer a laissez-faire approach to moderation but there will be moderation. A statement of our purpose and aims is being prepared right now. 

If you want the kind of forum that you created, I personally don't see why you want to impose your vision on us. Keep it open, you are still welcome here as, I hope, we would be welcome there.

I don't want to have or support a forum. I've made that clear elsewhere. I installed phpBB and published it in order to try and salvage the skeptiko community, which I thought was in danger of disbanding. I couldn't have been happier when I say that another more organized forum had been started. 

I'm trying to understand why if this is a discussion forum that evidently allows discussion of anything related to psi or metaphysics or the paranormal, why you would be so keen to make actual rules about what can or cannot be discussed. I'm all for playing it by ear. If a thread is rotten then eliminate it. I've said that half a dozen times already in this thread alone.

But Sci seems hell bent on having some written rule that allows or disallows some specific topics of discussion. What is the point? Why make a rule that is not required when common sense can simply stand in and act when required? I don't want to make this forum anything other than a place to have interesting discussions on topics that pertain directly to psi, metaphysics  and the paranormal.

But Sci seems hell bent on having some written rule that allows or disallows some specific topics of discussion. What is the point? Why make a rule that is not required when common sense can simply stand in and act when required? I don't want to make this forum anything other than a place to have interesting discussions on topics that pertain directly to psi, metaphysics  and the paranormal.

I thought you yourself said we don't need pedophile "rights" or Holocaust Denial threads?

Do we need threads about Anti-semitic conspiracy theories? If not, then what's the boundary between accusing Jews of crimes versus accusing specific individuals?

It just seems to me that several of us offered an answer to at least a few conspiracy theories on Skeptiko, only to be told we're unable to face the truth, that we didn't have the correct intuition to connect the dots, and others have been accused of being condescending, brainwashed, naive, etc. Or that, despite lack of evidence, a CT just "makes sense".

Why I asked what level of moderation would be expected for the CT & political forums, though again why don't we have special Beer, Sailing, TV, Music, sub-forums as well?

I don't want to have or support a forum. I've made that clear elsewhere. I installed phpBB and published it in order to try and salvage the skeptiko community, which I thought was in danger of disbanding. I couldn't have been happier when I say that another more organized forum had been started. 

It's very convenient for you to have all your moderating work undertaken by others. However, what if none of the moderators (I'm not saying this is or isn't the case) has the slightest interest in the CT or politics threads? Why expect them to spend time moderating those threads? Or if they don't see it as the core of the aims of this forum, Why expect them to spend time moderating such content?

I can't help but feel you are trying to take advantage of other peoples generosity and goodwill, rather than taking on the workload yourself.

I thought you yourself said we don't need pedophile "rights" or Holocaust Denial threads?

Do we need threads about Anti-semitic conspiracy theories? If not, then what's the boundary between accusing Jews of crimes versus accusing specific individuals?

It just seems to me that several of us offered an answer to at least a few conspiracy theories on Skeptiko, only to be told we're unable to face the truth, that we didn't have the correct intuition to connect the dots, and others have been accused of being condescending, brainwashed, naive, etc. Or that, despite lack of evidence, a CT just "makes sense".

Why I asked what level of moderation would be expected for the CT & political forums, though again why don't we have special Beer, Sailing, TV, Music, sub-forums as well?

I've already advocated numerous times in this thread to delete for all eternity threads that are deemed inappropriate for the forum.  I don't think we should have a separate subform for these topics. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I imagine they might grow organically out of a conversation already in progress.

I can't help but feel you are trying to take advantage of other peoples generosity and goodwill, rather than taking on the workload yourself.

What? That makes zero sense. I'm advocating for a position on moderation in a community in which I have been an active member for many years. We've all just come from a forum where the moderation was absurd, odd-handed and unexpectedly draconian. 

I don't want this to be a forum where political discussions are the main-stay. I've already said that numerous times. But there will undoubtedly be threads where politics and especially conspiracy theories occasionally take center stage. I fail to see how that inevitability turns this into Skeptiko 4.0.

[Laird]

OK, so... that's a big, fat "No" to consensus. Ah well, we'll have to try the original approach I suggested - somebody (defaulting to me if nobody else nominates) needs to go through this thread and identify all of the possible options, then we can put up a poll and simply go with the one that gets the most votes.

I've already advocated numerous times in this thread to delete for all eternity threads that are deemed inappropriate for the forum.  I don't think we should have a separate subform for these topics. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I imagine they might grow organically out of a conversation already in progress.

I guess it just seems to me that including political/CT stuff (and in this time how do you separate these two) we're extending an open hand to stuff even Alex doesn't want to deal with. Basically giving a refuge to the very stuff Alex deleted Other Stuff over.

I thought an invitation only forum that could only be seen by invitees might work...but it does open up the question. If a group of people get really into some TV show do they also deserve a subforum?

And if there is no subforum, what's the limit of accusations (which CT/politics always includes) against individuals when evidence is sparse to non-existent? Does a forum need to provide a space for that which if said in a publication would constitute libel, or would be laughed out of a criminal/civil court?