What should forum policy be on defamatory posts?

The only case of doxxing on this forum that I'm aware of is ...

Thanks for the clarification.Yes, I was indirectly alluding to that, I wasn't sure how that fitted within this context. I've nothing further to add here.

I had a Skeptiko member say some pretty nasty things about me and to me, insinuating a lot of stuff. I was upset about it at first, but I wrote a response and then let it go. And it's not like accusations against my anonymous username, which is in no way connected to my real-life name, is going to impact my life and ruin my reputation, so no that would not be legal defamation.

If someone came on here saying that about Max, I'd be surprised, and troubled someone would say that, but then again, it's just another anonymous user accusing another anonymous user of crap (that's the Internet for you), and if that person can't link to something written by Max himself (about him raping women), I'd dismiss it.

It would be another thing with doxxing though. I'd hope this forum is completely against doxxing users.

I had the same problem. But the damnedest thing was the mod at the time didnt lift a finger to stop it. I didn't like the mod and I'm sure they didn't like me so they were letting the member do the dirty work for them I suspect. The mod always gave the impression of being better than the rest of us. During the whole  time I had to bite my tongue for fear of being banned. I don't think that member has posted at skeptiko for a long time but if they show here and start insulting me I will speak out.

[Laird]

I (Laird) wrote: "Members should feel free to call out themselves defamation and slurs for which moderators do not take action..."

Not to be pedantic, but I think that should read/say, "Members should feel free to call out defamation and slurs themselves...."

My thinking was that placing "themselves" after "defamation and slurs" might indicate grammatically that "themselves" referred to the "defamation and slurs"... so perhaps it was me who was being pedantic!

Have there been any cases of doxxing* on this forum? Have otherwise anonymous members been identified publicly? Would that be a breach of the rules or not?

*since I'm new to that term, I'm not sure of its nuances or scope - or even its meaning, come to that.

SandyB and Smit doxxed me on the old forums (both were removed (very reluctantly) when I complained to the mod). The really weird thing about Sandy's doxxing, considering that she would endlessly accuse me of being dishonest about my background, was that she doxxed me with links to the Healthgrades page on my US medical practice and links to my local weaving guild which had pictures and text about me. 

It's good to know that isn't allowed here, even for the sake of attacking someone's qualifications. 

To be honest, I don't care if someone knows who I am in real life. I'm not anybody special. But some of the forum members frighten me.

Linda

Yes, I personally find it more scary when a member claims medical expertise (without proving it) rather than members like me who are not experts but are referred to as scary (frightening) by certain members of the forum.

Hm. I’m not so sure that it is reasonable to expect somebody who claims expertise in a field to identify themselves online. Maybe sometimes it’s appropriate.

Personally, I think one should form a view based on the information available. It is often possible to find someone we know to offer a professional opinion on what someone else is claiming.

Just because someone is an expert in a field, or claims to be, it doesn’t prevent a layman challenging what they say or exploring it does it?

Hm. I’m not so sure that it is reasonable to expect somebody who claims expertise in a field to identify themselves online. Maybe sometimes it’s appropriate.

Personally, I think one should form a view based on the information available. It is often possible to find someone we know to offer a professional opinion on what someone else is claiming.

Just because someone is an expert in a field, or claims to be, it doesn’t prevent a layman challenging what they say or exploring it does it?

You always have to be contrary, darn it, Obiwan 

Wouldn't you agree that if a member claims that a recognised expert in something (NDE for instance) is full of S H one T and they know better....isn't it fair that they should tell us why they think they are qualified to say that. And what their qualifications are. 

tim (one of the frightening members)

You always have to be contrary, darn it, Obiwan 

Wouldn't you agree that if a member claims that a recognised expert in something (NDE for instance) is full of S H one T and they know better....isn't it fair that they should tell us why they think they are qualified to say that. And what their qualifications are. 

tim (one of the frightening members)

Haha I’m not being deliberately so. 

I think it depends. An expert in NDEs - I’d agree on this forum perhaps ought to identify themselves. I don’t think there’s a big list and I’d think most of them would anyway. But if someone claims to be a doctor, even a specialist, I don’t think they necessarily need to identify themselves. If they don’t of course, I don’t think anyone should have reservations about simply ignoring them if it appears their opinion doesn’t fit the known facts.

Let’s suppose someone claims to be an expert in physical mediumship. Should they identify themselves or be named if we can figure out who they are? Where do we draw the line?

I wouldn’t like to think we might be deprived of useful input because someone knowledgable wanted to add to the discussion but didn’t want to identify themselves.

That just seems designed to keep anybody with knowledge and experience away from the forum. Is that really what people want?

If this is just about me, then don't twist yourselves in a knot trying to come up with a policy just to muffle me. 

Linda