Moderation of Pseudoscience Forum

[James R]

Nominations are currently open for the position of Moderator of the Pseudoscience forum. If you wish to nominate, please use the following thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35515

I have started this thread in the lead up to the election in order to gauge what kind of moderation users of this forum actually want.

I advise users to look at the forum rules posted as sticky threads in some of the other forums. I imagine most of those rules would be applicable here, too, but maybe not all of them.

So:

• What kinds of threads and discussions should be allowed here?
• What shouldn't be allowed?
• What kinds of posts should be moved out of this forum to other forums?
• Should moderation be more relaxed here than in other parts of sciforums? If so, how so?

Post your opinions and thoughts here.

 

[sargentlard]

What kinds of threads and discussions should be allowed here?

Obviously threads relating to abnormal and unexplained. Goes without saying that spam and cross posting will be not tolerated.

What shouldn't be allowed?

11 different threads on rock of Mars. No cross posting, no cut & Paste threads. Either threads will be merged or deleted when the content is obviously the same.

What kinds of posts should be moved out of this forum to other forums?

Posts about: Lucid dreams, out of body experiences etc etc. Posters may confuse content from parapsychology with pseudoscience. The obvious stuff. Also needless insults and posts where 5 pages are soley comprised of back and forth insults will be closed or given a strict warning.

Should moderation be more relaxed here than in other parts of sciforums? If so, how so?

Yes, because most of the content here is "ludacris" within the context of the forums guidelines. What is real or not is not for me or any other critic to judge. The hopefuls have the right to present their case....my job is to only intervene when the arguments heat up and escalate into pointless cross posting and insults spread out through multiple similar threads. Also the removal of obvious useless material.


If I win (hahaha...no :bugeye: ) my goal is to stay away from the actual conversations and let them take form into whatever maybe, to only intervene and take action when it is more than apparent that something must be done....that requires reading every new thread and posts to ensure pleasent or semi-pleasent time for all. Angers will flare, dellusions will be questioned but aliens or not, that curious poster has the right to be treated with the oppertunity to speak his/her mind but to also understand that with freedom comes responsibility.

 

[crazymikey]

James R:

I think it's quite clear what should not be allowed here. Some members who post here, the so called "skeptics" do nothing but ridicule the issues, openly insult, or gang-up on others. They almost never have a constructive argument, and they will repeat the same arguments repeatedly.

Those include: Q, Persol, Avatar, Skinwalker, Votorx and WCF

They have said anything sensible and always degrade the intellectual quality of discussions. This is clear, when they consider the discussion of UFO's and ETI's to be bullshit, rubbish, or fanatacism, and they have all made comments affirming these stances. This is exactly why they only post in these topics, to give negative or derogative feedback. Despite how much I, or Zonabi. or others, implore them behave, they still continue.

I want moderators to remove any such comments, that have nothing to do with the discussion, or are flames or flame bait, especially from the aforementioned, as they almost never say anything sensible.

 

[sargentlard]

I want moderators to remove any such comments, that have nothing to do with the discussion, or are flames or flame bait, especially from the aforementioned, as they almost never say anything sensible.

Freedom of speech Mikey. They have every right to question you..be it in a sarcastic tone or in a tone oa complete A-hole. I have seen those named posts...they question you and others on your work...everyother unrelated negative comment should asked to be withheld.

 

[crazymikey]

Freedom of speech?

I guess that is what justifies Xev being a racist?

The freedom of speech seems to be a very convenient invention, and a very subjective invention(this but not that) In other words, you don't need no moderators here....rrrrright? Ok, close the topic, everyone can say what they want, no matter how inflammatory, offensive, unsensible, rude" because of freedom of speech

 

[sargentlard]

Freedom of speech?

I guess that is what justifies Xev being a racist?

That is her own system of beliefs. Whether or not her racism is justified or not is not for anyone to decide. Stay on topic.

The freedom of speech seems to be a very convenient invention, and a very subjective invention(this but not that)

It is a crucial invention when you want all opposition blocked off. You want to prove yourself, they want to disprove you....deal with it.

In other words, you don't need no moderators here....rrrrright? Ok, close the topic, everyone can say what they want, no matter how inflammatory, offensive, unsensible, rude" because of freedom of speech

That is another story. Speak your mind, you're free to but sincerity will be inforced upon you or others if you or they aren't mature enough to consider your own actions.

This is not the place nor the thread to discuss this.

 

[crazymikey]

That is another story. Speak your mind, you're free to but sincerity will be inforced upon you or others if you or they aren't mature enough to consider your own actions.

What happened to freedom of speech?

And what is this double-speak on being mature enough to consider own actions? Since, when are open insults, ridicule of the issues and derogative feedback, mature?

This IS the place to discuss this.

 

[sargentlard]

What happened to freedom of speech?

This isn't a democracy. It is run by Porfiry's rules: Speak free but watch your ass.

And what is this double-speak on being mature enough to consider own actions? Since, when are open insults, ridicule of the issues and derogative feedback, mature?

The posters you blame of this should answer this. Not me, I gave your threads (in the instances I responded to them) a fair trial.

This IS the place to discuss this.

No it isn't. Reread the intial post.

 

[crazymikey]

In other words, there is a limit on freedom of speech, hence it's not freedom of speech

No, Sargent this IS the thread to discuss how we want moderation to be, and what exactly needs to be moderated.

What kinds of threads and discussions should be allowed here?
What shouldn't be allowed?

 

[sargentlard]

In other words, there is a limit on freedom of speech, hence it's not freedom of speech

If you want to take into literal sense then no there isn't...is it anywhere? No.

No, Sargent this IS the thread to discuss how we want moderation to be, and what exactly needs to be moderated.

As opposed to what YOU want to be moderated. I understand what you wish to be done and I agree but do not expect every post in opposition to yours being deleted if I win (hahahah no
:bugeye: )

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

If I was elected i would delete posts like the art was going out of fashion.
Not only the nutcases but the over the top skeptics, if people are discussing an issue that is not whether ufos exist or not but something else to do with ufos and someone comes in decreeing that ufos don't exist I would delete the post because it wouldn't be relevent to the discussion.
In short, freedom of speach my ass.
Vote for me (seriously, I'd be great)

 

[SkinWalker]

• What kinds of threads and discussions should be allowed here?

I think threads and discussions in a pseudoscience forum of a science board should focus on pseudoscience as a topic not as a lifestyle. SciForums is a science board and as such scientific method, scientific thought and concepts such as logical positivism should be embraced. Alternative "theories" (quotes intentional), wild speculation and out-right treatment of crank ideas as legitimate science should only be discussed here as it effects science, society and advancement of intellectual thought.

For too long the kooks and cranks have occupied this space, perhaps in attempt to find acceptance or develop credibility to be marketed a crank boards.

For example: a discussion about UFO/ETI as a pseudoscience and the affect that popular culture, the media, and attempts to present "ufology" as a legitimate science should be acceptable. Dissenting arguments from UFO/ETI proponents would be one thing, but threads on "Proof of ETI" that offer no real proof or discussions of "UFO Bible" that offer the television fantasy of The X-Files as a possible source of actual truth should be heavily moderated if not locked/deleted.

In otherwords, scientific methodology as accepted by real science should be the model and pseudoscience should be talked about not talked up.

I'd like to see discussions and reviews of pseudoscience and speculative authors and figures like Graham Hancock. I'd like to see a break from all the UFO/ETI garbage and some discussions of other pseudoscience that might be less obvious -the recent hype over psychotropic drugs with teens, for instance: for the hypothesis that these drugs are causing teens to commit suicide, is the sample size too small? Is the fact that depressed teens more likely to commit suicide in the first place being overlooked? Is it pseudoscience to accept public outcry over the evidence? Or is the evidence there?

Now that would be a good PseudoScience thread.

I'm almost finished with a rather intense semester and would be happy to begin some of these threads as well as participate in their discussion.

• What shouldn't be allowed?

Kook posts. Crank posts. Links to crank sites that aren't followed by critical discussion or review. Someone posting "Proof for ETI" or "Scientists discover fuel for Lazar's UFO" are obviously trolling for arguments from those that actually subscribe to scientific method or are looking for links of credibility that they can share with the kook boards they've exhausted.

• What kinds of posts should be moved out of this forum to other forums?

Anything that doesn't get locked or deleted and isn't related to discussion of pseudo science / attempt(s) to present wild speculation, alternative "theories," etc. as real science.

• Should moderation be more relaxed here than in other parts of sciforums? If so, how so?

Absolutely not. I think that if there were firm rules against ad hominem remarks, spam, flaming of members, profanity, etc. that were enforced (threads locked, posts deleted, offending passages replaced with [removed by moderator], etc.), then the kooks and cranks would be forced to leave or revise their positions. Whenever the "wild claims" and speculations of the kooks or the so-called "proofs" of the cranks are refuted, debunked, or deconstructed, the only responses that can be mustered are ad hominem remarks or claims that the refutations and debunkings constitute "character assassination" or "personal attacks."

The "freedom of speech" argument can only go so far. I'm all for allowing others to say what they believe, but if there was total "freedom of speech" there would be no need for specific forums. Threads on cloning would be moved from the Astronomy forum to the Biology one. If someone has a theory that is comprised of tested hypotheses regarding extraterrestrial intelligence, then it should have no problem surviving in the Astronomy, Exobiology, Cosmology forum. Also, Members should be free from abuse from other members. I know I've made one or more ad hominem remarks in the past, but certainly below the norm and certainly not to anyone that hadn't directed one in my direction first. Yet these types of remarks shouldn't be protected by free speech.

Having said all that, I think that the likely reason for the existence of Pseudoscience as a forum within the SciForums is to offer a place to banish the kooks to when they invade Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology with talk of UFOs and Aliens. If so, then it serves a purpose. But as long as I continue to visit SF and read the Pseudoscience posts that claim to have positive "proof," I will continue to dare these cranks to post in the "mainstream" forums.

 

[James R]

So, it seems we have two entirely opposite views here, as exemplified by crazymikey and SkinWalker's posts.

On the one hand, we have a group of people (I assume it is a group), who would like little moderation and the freedom to discuss all kinds of far-out ideas without any restrictions imposed by the scientific method. Preferably, they would rather not see scientists or skeptics here, because those kinds of people are just critical and can't think outside the square. They prevent people's imaginations from running freely, which is what this forum should be about.

Then, we have a second group of people who think that skepticism of pseudoscientific claims is to be encouraged, and is pretty much vital for any forum which is part of something called sciforums. They would like to see the wackiness reigned in. If people can't support their claims with evidence, they shouldn't be posting them.

The regular users of this forum really need to decide which camp they are in. Then you will all be able to elect an appropriate moderator, who agrees with your philosophy on what kind of forum this should be.

I really can't emphasize enough how important this issue is. It seems likely that any moderator elected will discourage one or other of the above groups from visiting the forum, unless they take a middle-of-the-road approach to moderation.

Something to think about.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

There is a reasonable middle ground. I'm anti-skepticism when it appears unnecessarrily and inappropriately. But I'm also anti posts that are like 'I fort i saw a gost but now I fink it was a alien'.
This should be a place to discuss the possibility of extraterrestrials and the paranormal reasonably and rationally. Where people can come with the theories they only see indications of rather than have evidence for. If things aren't 100% coldly scientific in here we should let it slide, people shouldn't be ridiculed and berated every time they mention extraterrestrials or something unusual. Thats what the board is for. But we should draw the line at obvious immature fantasy absent of reason.

 

[(Q)]

What kinds of threads and discussions should be allowed here?

Pseudoscience.

What shouldn't be allowed?

Nothing at all.

What kinds of posts should be moved out of this forum to other forums?

Religous, political, and other such topics best suited for those forums.

Should moderation be more relaxed here than in other parts of sciforums? If so, how so?

There should be very little moderation of this forum.

JamesR stated:

people's imaginations ... running freely, which is what this forum should be about.

I agree, imaginations should run freely in this forum, so long as the protagonists quit insisting their "visions" contain hard evidence in favor of a reality.

 

[crazymikey]

On the one hand, we have a group of people (I assume it is a group), who would like little moderation and the freedom to discuss all kinds of far-out ideas without any restrictions imposed by the scientific method. Preferably, they would rather not see scientists or skeptics here, because those kinds of people are just critical and can't think outside the square. They prevent people's imaginations from running freely, which is what this forum should be about.

Nope, this is not the position I am supporting:

First and foremost, this forum is called "pseudoscience" hence it allows discussion that is exempt from the scientific method: alternative theories, speculations, metaphysics.

However, as you wrongly categorized ETI and UFO as pseudoscience(which supports the scientific method, making it legitimate for mainstream scientific discussion) it is our choice to use the scientific method in "pseudoscience" forum discussions.

I do not think there should be a dilemma at all. All I want, and I think I can speak for the rest of my group, is the freedom to discuss our alternative theories, metaphysical, speculations, UFO's and ETI(which is the crux of this forum) which is exactly what this "psuedoscience forum" is for "Aliens, UFO, explained phenomena and other" in other words you have already given us all liberty to discuss what we do discuss. So what is the problem?

What should be moderated: Derogative feedback, flames, flame baits, ridiculing of the issues, basically anything that is unsensible or immature.

We are not asking for anything really. We just want a conductive environment for a sensible discussion of matters pertaining to "pseudosciece"

In reality you should be asking pseudoskeptics like Skinwalker, why are they here, if they don't approve of the matters discussed here, that are very clearly outlined by the title of this forum, as well as the description.

So what is the problem? As long as i've been here, all I have seen is the pseudoskeptics openly attack, ridicule, insult or just post the same argument over and over again, and despite how much we have implored them to behave and discuss constructively with us, they have continued.

This is not about skepticism James. It's fine to be skeptic, but it's not fine, to be stupid, and that is exactly what Skinwalker, Q, Persol, WCF, Votorx and Avatar, are doing. They are a problem here, not a group of people with different opinion.

I am sure you agree, this forum is for discussion, we are doing that. They are not. So they should be dealt with. Not us.

 

[Avatar]

* What kinds of threads and discussions should be allowed here?
all that fit theories outside of the mainstream scientifical acceptance
* What shouldn't be allowed?
idioticy! I'm serious. If I'm being shown a rock that looks like dog shit and said that it's an undoubtable proof that there exists an active eti civilization on Mars...
I'd prefer such threads to be locked (not deleted). In such cases at least 3 members with at least a post count of 1000 should invite the moderator to look at the thread and decide for himself, if that is just pure bollox and idioticy or not. In other cases - should follow the forum rules about flame wars, etc.
* What kinds of posts should be moved out of this forum to other forums?
those that fit under another category (for example Parapsichology) or that are not Pseudoscience OR gather enough evidence and proof to be moved outside of the grey Pseudoscience area. Thus I expect that reasonable scientifical discussions would take place, not just throwing arround with empty words and declarations!
* Should moderation be more relaxed here than in other parts of sciforums? If so, how so?
yes, it should. only posts that are pure idiotic should be deleted on-sight, others should be locked on member request (a mod still is the last judge)

 

[Avatar]

crazymikey is the last person on this forum that should talk about "being mature". if needed I can present quotes.

 

[crazymikey]

James: I present this as an example, made by Avatar, in "Shift Shape" by Zonabi, of the type of idiocy perpitrated by the pseudoskeptics, and that we have to endure:

Avatar has made many off-topic remarks or remarks that only ridicule the issues being discussed. You can see yourself how unthoughtful and immature this is. It clutters the thread, distracts from the topic, and even offends. He has done the same in my topic: "Intelligence on Mars"

This is the type of idiotic post that needs to be deleted by moderators, and such members should also get warnings.

 

[Avatar]

you could also mention that the thread was useless from the begining with just a declaration that secret societies rule the world, without any backup data or suggested evidence.
After my comic and later explanation for it at least the maker of that thread put a reference to one book [in reverse] apparently afraid that the book could be spotted by Echelon. Yes, I use sarcasm and I moved the discussion to a level where there is at least something to discuss, that being the named book

unfortunately the named book contains such paragraphs as:

A reprint of a document found in a IBM copier bought at a surplus sale. In short this document is a blue print for controlling a population.
>OATH OF INITIATION OF AN UNIDENTIFIED SECRET ORDER
>DOCUMENTATION: U.S. ARMY INTELLIGENCE CONNECTION WITH SATANIC CHURCH

but that's better than nothing I presume