What should forum policy be on defamatory posts?

From a legal standpoint (get me Arouet), what would manipulating data to benefit your employer be classified as? Because whatever it is, that's what Max implied.

You've got to admit when you've over reacted, and made a wrong decision. Otherwise your just doing Alex2 with different criteria. You don't like my legitimate comments, and perhaps you're a very strong respector of authority etc...  I understand that you love the idea of Radin and G appearing on the forum, like a guest at your dinner party, and you want them to be treated with some extra degree of respect, as if they are a celebrity - which I guess they are to you. But I think no such additional protection should be given to anyone. And Radin should be challenged just like everyone else is on here. If Randi had come on and I had said a similar thing, I don't think you would have acted so outraged.

Seriously, removing legitimate comments, because you don't like them is incorrect. You said you would consult before doing this stuff, instead you made claims I had said something that I hadn't, and you acted anyway.  

Looks like the honeymoon is over for this forum. The same happened with Skeptiko. Whips are out. You will not challenge people that we respect.

You should stop trying to frame this as a personal issue only Laird had. I and several others thought you overstepped the mark. Whats legitimate about insinuating fraud anyway? You have no proof, it just drags the discussion down.

@chris I suggested earlier that if a person is going to suggest fraud/cheating, it might be an idea to approach the subject somewhat obliquely. Cheating or fraud is always a possibility in any activity where success is claimed, whether Psi  or not.

Sometimes the argument is that the result may have been achieved by some method which the opponent goes on to describe. This is often a it's very long way from showing that's what actually happened as opposed what might have happened as far as I can see.

Where someone has proof of cheating or fraud, then I can't see why they can't say that as in this case it would be then nub of the discussion and relevant. Perhaps it is more about the way the way it is presented? Perhaps moderators can suggest a rephrasing where that's appropriate? Just a thought.

You've got to admit when you've over reacted, and made a wrong decision. Otherwise your just doing Alex2 with different criteria. You don't like my legitimate comments, and perhaps you're a very strong respector of authority etc...  I understand that you love the idea of Radin and G appearing on the forum, like a guest at your dinner party, and you want them to be treated with some extra degree of respect, as if they are a celebrity - which I guess they are to you. But I think no such additional protection should be given to anyone. And Radin should be challenged just like everyone else is on here. If Randi had come on and I had said a similar thing, I don't think you would have acted so outraged.

Seriously, removing legitimate comments, because you don't like them is incorrect. You said you would consult before doing this stuff, instead you made claims I had said something that I hadn't, and you acted anyway.  

Looks like the honeymoon is over for this forum. The same happened with Skeptiko. Whips are out. You will not challenge people that we respect. The mock outrage of people like Roberta, who's quite happy to call me all the names under the sun, then act wounded, has seized your attention. But I'm an adult, I can take it. I only draw the line at clearly harmful comments to someone's character. Like perhaps claiming another poster is a pedophile, And has convictions for sex crimes etc when their is no obvious proof of that.

I didn’t agree with your comments on that thread, Max. But I know you did not outright say that Radin was engaging in fraud, and I didn’t think your comments even remotely rose to defamation or libel. (However, I do think you are being quite stubborn! But that is just my personal opinion.)

I hope you don’t give up on the forum  just yet. At least we are having these discussions about moderation out in the open, something that was tried, but always seemed to be fail, on the SF.

I think we should be able to speculate about people’s motives in research, like whether it’s intentional, due to (unconscious) bias, or just because of a big, old blind spot. I just read about a study yesterday that infuriated me (had nothing to do with psi or the paranormal), and I would definitely speculate on its flaws, conclusions, possibly intentional obfuscation in its conclusions and subsequent promotion in the media.

I also agree that those who post here who work in the field should not be treated like celebrities; they should be treated respectfully, just like any other forum poster. I think we should strive for civility in all discussions, even when things are heated, though I do allow that people sometimes lose their tempers from time to time, too.

If the owners got a take down notice with legal threats, I'd expect them to act in their own interests. I'd hope the takedown notice was provided to people who asked, and that some open discussion took place first, so that people could have time to save content BEFORE it's removed.

But, alas, our lack of a community consensus about it when you posted that led to growing pains. I suggest that you push this as a solution instead of debating if what you implied was outright fraud or just omission to bias the results.

Also, we should probably set a line between our sysops and Alex, who in his latter days had no issues implying some pretty devious things about the subjects of his conspiracies (see Lieutenant Aquinas, for example). At least we get to discuss what happens.

I didn’t agree with your comments on that thread, Max. But I know you did not outright say that Radin was engaging in fraud, and I didn’t think your comments even remotely rose to defamation or libel. (However, I do think you are being quite stubborn! But that is just my personal opinion.)

I hope you don’t give up on the forum  just yet. At least we are having these discussions about moderation out in the open, something that was tried, but always seemed to be fail, on the SF.

I think we should be able to speculate about people’s motives in research, like whether it’s intentional, due to (unconscious) bias, or just because of a big, old blind spot. I just read about a study yesterday that infuriated me (had nothing to do with psi or the paranormal), and I would definitely speculate on its flaws, conclusions, possibly intentional obfuscation in its conclusions and subsequent promotion in the media.

I also agree that those who post here who work in the field should not be treated like celebrities; they should be treated respectfully, just like any other forum poster. I think we should strive for civility in all discussions, even when things are heated, though I do allow that people sometimes lose their tempers from time to time, too.

I don't know... Max later emphasizing that "IONS is all about meditation" does imply that the original  comment assumes that Radin was actively pushing to get a positive result in favor of the meditators or that he omitted information... Either of which would be something worse than just incompetence. In any case, that particular comment wasn't a "challenge", unlike his long-as-hell argument about sound, it was a comment on character.