What should forum policy be on defamatory posts?

This is a good issue to discuss. I am very much in agreement with what Ninshub wrote.

I see that the issue of defaming forum members was touched upon slightly. I just wanted to put in my two cents.

There continues to be multiple, defamatory, false statements made about me, but I expect to sorta take care of myself on this. And I don't think moderators should be expected to police this or be placed in a position where they have to act as judge. But I also don't want to diminish the extent to which it can become oppressive and cruel, or the extent to which reasonable (even if heated) discussions become side-tracked by personal attacks. So I don't want to necessarily speak for others who are subject to defamatory posts.

Maybe the litmus test could be that it's up to the individual to complain to a moderator if personal attacks are having a negative effect.

Linda

This is a good issue to discuss. I am very much in agreement with what Ninshub wrote.

I see that the issue of defaming forum members was touched upon slightly. I just wanted to put in my two cents.

There continues to be multiple, defamatory, false statements made about me, but I expect to sorta take care of myself on this. And I don't think moderators should be expected to police this or be placed in a position where they have to act as judge. But I also don't want to diminish the extent to which it can become oppressive and cruel, or the extent to which reasonable (even if heated) discussions become side-tracked by personal attacks. So I don't want to necessarily speak for others who are subject to defamatory posts.

Maybe the litmus test could be that it's up to the individual to complain to a moderator if personal attacks are having a negative effect.

Linda

Seems reasonable.

[Laird]

Has this thread come to any conclusion yet?

Close to it, but not yet. I was hoping that Ian would get the chance to read through it and offer his view as he suggested he might - since he drafted the existing rules - and then we could put forward a specific proposed policy which could be critiqued and modified or accepted as-is. Perhaps, though, Ian doesn't have the time to do that. I'll ping him privately.

[Ninshub]

My general stance is to risk erring on the side of overzealous liberalism re: moderation.

So that the type of post Max B made regarding Radin would be left to forum members to challenge, and not for moderators to act on. I am in agreement, however, with not allowing IMO more grievous, unsubstantiated allegations of sex crimes, paedophilia, etc.

When it comes to forum members making accusations against other forum members, rather than public figures, however, I think the rules should be a bit stricter - just meaning that most of those accusations would fall under the category of personal attacks and breaking the established rule of engaging in a minimum of respect towards other participants. (Not that the slightest failure here should have to be subject to heavy moderation - arguments and verbal fights will necessarily go over the boundaries a bit, i.e. this is an internet forum -, but that excessive lack of respect and flagrant personal attacks, the kind you find in Youtube comments, would be subject to administrative action.)

[Laird]

Nice, thanks, Ian. Based on the discussion so far, I've drafted a potential addition to the rules which I'll share here. I hope folks will speak up if they have any criticisms:

Defamatory remarks and personal slurs: Are strongly discouraged, however they will not be policed by moderators, with two exceptions: (1) The subject is a forum member, in which case they are considered to be a form of personal attack as described above, and, (2) They are extremely grievious or offensive, e.g., unsubstantiated accusations of paedophilia or other sex crimes.

In particular, accusations of fraud or incompetence against researchers are tolerated in the interests of furthering critical debate - members should feel free to call out themselves such accusations where unjustified because moderators will not, in their capacity as moderators, take action on such accusations (though they may call out such accusations in their capacity as ordinary members).

I'd also suggest we append this on to the end of the section, "Non-psi-related conspiracy theories and political topics":

Note that in these forums, moderators will be even more lenient with respect to potentially defamatory posts about public figures than in the main forums, for two reasons: (1) the forums are private, and, (2) the nature of these forums is in part to criticise public figures, and to police such criticism would be to frustrate the discussions.

[Ninshub]

I think the issue between members is stickier... for instance your post to me on another thread suggesting that I suck... or Typoz's later remark that I'm a self harmer... or Roberta's past verbal tirades... none of which contained any substance to do with the discussion at hand might be construed a similar a problem which falls under these rules...

But my point is they shouldn't fall under these rules... and I'd want to retain the right to post in the same way, without moderator's getting involved in spats between members. Only the more serious sorts of claims "your a rapist" etc should really be considered by moderators.

I'm sympathetic to this.

This is maybe a separate issue, and a possible rethinking of the Respect rule, or of its application. I think it's a complicated one. Because I agree that the examples you gave could all fall under the category of personal attacks - that's why personally I've tried to steer away of giving any Likes to such statements -, but on the other hand I don't judge them serious enough for moderators to act upon, and I also wouldn't want moderators to step in to settle spats, just let them rise and fall by themselves.

On the other hand, if members start engaging in name-calling, for example ("you're an asshole"), especially outside the context of a fight ("people shouldn't mind Max B, he's an asshole" - which I don't think Max, by the way )) shouldn't be tolerated if it gets above a certain level.

When it comes to forum members making accusations against other forum members, rather than public figures, however, I think the rules should be a bit stricter - just meaning that most of those accusations would fall under the category of personal attacks and breaking the established rule of engaging in a minimum of respect towards other participants. (Not that the slightest failure here should have to be subject to heavy moderation - arguments and verbal fights will necessarily go over the boundaries a bit, i.e. this is an internet forum -, but that excessive lack of respect and flagrant personal attacks, the kind you find in Youtube comments, would be subject to administrative action.)

I would just say that, human nature being what it is, sometimes people post things they know aren't true, and it's probably not a good idea to let them do that and at the same time to prevent other people from saying they think that's what's happening. 

I can't see that abuse and name-calling serve any useful purpose but, as you say, these things tend to happen during the course of heated arguments, and probably an occasional comment will be enough to remind people they shouldn't go too far.

[Laird]

I think the issue between members is stickier... for instance your post to me on another thread suggesting that I suck... or Typoz's later remark that I'm a self harmer... or Roberta's past verbal tirades... none of which contained any substance to do with the discussion at hand might be construed a similar a problem which falls under these rules...

But my point is they shouldn't fall under these rules... and I'd want to retain the right to post in the same way, without moderator's getting involved in spats between members. Only the more serious sorts of claims "your a rapist" etc should really be considered by moderators.

I agree, these types of posts shouldn't fall under these rules - and they don't. None of them were either defamation (defamation requires that the posts be based on falsehoods, which they weren't) or attacks (they were legitimate criticisms, not illegitimate attacks).

The sort of post that would fall under these rules is this: "Max_B has a mental illness, borderline personality disorder, which causes him to lie pathologically. You can't believe anything he says". That would qualify because (1) it is untrue and (2) it is unsubstantiated.

So, now that we've cleared that up, tell me: do you feel that that sort of defamation of members on the forum ought to be policed by moderators or not?

(By the way, I didn't say you sucked, I said the dynamic I described sucked for members of the forum. I don't think you suck, I think you're a good guy.)