Reasons for banning individuals

One thing which did arise from that thread was the need, to have something in addition to back-and-forth exchanges. They of course are valuable, but mostly I found myself pointing to basic resources on the topic. Perhaps as a site which does frequently discuss NDEs, there should be some sort of self-study section dedicated to pointing out relevant resources where people - not just those involved in that thread - but everyone, can readily find out more.
 
All very fair, Max. I am not in a position to countermand another moderator's decisions, especially since, as you note, the majority of forum participants probably don't care either way. I would say though that you do have significant influence, but that's based on a view of democratic/egalitarian moderation which others - including, I sense, and which is somewhat counter-intuitive, you, yourself - may not share.

Also, just so you know, Dr J and Pogatch have not been banned. Should they continue to contribute (unlikely, in my opinion, since they were probably only here to have a go at Bob, who invited them), they will be confined to the CD forum.

Have u seen what bippy is tweeting...

https://twitter.com/wallstreeter43/status/876157421512675328
 

Well, that's disappointing, but understandable. Reading through the first few pages of the thread in question, I was shocked by the leeway that Skeptiko regulars granted the smooth-talking Henson813 and his cohorts. It was like Skeptiko folk were willing to let these obviously skeptically-biased new folk walk all over us.
 
What a great idea, Typoz. Would you be interested in volunteering to help build that set of resources?
Well, this reminds me of someone who complained that he was fed up with drawing up rotas, and that it should be shared around. "What a great idea, draw up a rota!"

My idea was for something quite small and limited - yesterday I suggested two relevant items. The problem as I see it is that of course there should be inputs from more than one person, but at the same time there's a tendency for such things to either fizzle out, or grow without end into something so large and unwieldy that it becomes unuseable.
 
Well, that's disappointing, but understandable. Reading through the first few pages of the thread in question, I was shocked by the leeway that Skeptiko regulars granted the smooth-talking Henson813 and his cohorts. It was like Skeptiko folk were willing to let these obviously skeptically-biased new folk walk all over us.
I had no interest in engaging in lengthy back-and-forth exchanges. It's something I rarely do in any case. But in that particular thread my view was that basic study of the topic was required before even beginning to discuss it. Having said that - I didn't read it all, no idea about the later stages.
 
Well, this reminds me of someone who complained that he was fed up with drawing up rotas, and that it should be shared around. "What a great idea, draw up a rota!"

My idea was for something quite small and limited - yesterday I suggested two relevant items. The problem as I see it is that of course there should be inputs from more than one person, but at the same time there's a tendency for such things to either fizzle out, or grow without end into something so large and unwieldy that it becomes unuseable.

No worries, do you think you might be able to work something into the [anonymously editable draft linked to] Index of Skeptiko Resources thread? Feel free to suggest how your two (or more) resources could be meaningfully edited into that page, and/or how (if) you would prefer to go about it!
 
Well, that's disappointing, but understandable. Reading through the first few pages of the thread in question, I was shocked by the leeway that Skeptiko regulars granted the smooth-talking Henson813 and his cohorts. It was like Skeptiko folk were willing to let these obviously skeptically-biased new folk walk all over us.

The thread was removed in just a few hours (was it less than 24h? on a weekend).... takes time to galvanise resistance and 'out' people's true nature... difficult to engage at the start until new people post sufficiently detailed points to allow one to get ones hooks in.

But you're not going to get any response if you delete the thread. One area was people not known to have died, the other was the blind. I had only just raised an objection to the latter, with no time allowed for a response, when I went back to check for responses, I was left scratching my head because I was sure I had posted something, but turns out the thread was gone.
 
No worries, do you think you might be able to work something into the [anonymously editable draft linked to] Index of Skeptiko Resources thread? Feel free to suggest how your two (or more) resources could be meaningfully edited into that page, and/or how (if) you would prefer to go about it!
I guess that would be an example of the 'large and unwieldy' approach. Of course it is valuable in its own way, but is something far removed from the a, b, c approach I had in mind.
 
The thread was removed in just a few hours (was it less than 24h? on a weekend).... takes time to galvanise resistance and 'out' people's true nature... difficult to engage at the start until new people post sufficiently detailed points to allow one to get ones hooks in.

But you're not going to get any response if you delete the thread. One area was people not known to have died, the other was the blind. I had only just raised an objection to the latter, with no time allowed for a response, when I went back to check for responses, I was left scratching my head because I was sure I had posted something, but turns out the thread was gone.

I'm very sympathetic to your perspective, Max, just not in a position to override a fellow moderator's decision.
 
I guess that would be an example of the 'large and unwieldy' approach. Of course it is valuable in its own way, but is something far removed from the a, b, c approach I had in mind.

Well, one "ameliorating factor" is that you can link within the index to categories, which hopefully avoids too much of the unwieldiness, but I'm certainly not going to force you to accept a format that is not to your liking! How do you see the a, b, c approach working out in a way that suits you?
 
I'm very sympathetic to your perspective, Max, just not in a position to override a fellow moderator's decision.

I was just responding to your... "I was shocked by the leeway that Skeptiko regulars granted the smooth-talking Henson813 and his cohorts"...

Giz us a chance :-) , we need more than a few hours on a rare and beautiful sunny weekend here in the UK at least...? it took many years to get rid of Linda's wordsalads... and now you seem to be accusing regulars of not acting quickly enough in a period measured by hours?
 
I was just responding to your... "I was shocked by the leeway that Skeptiko regulars granted the smooth-talking Henson813 and his cohorts"...

Giz us a chance :) , we need more than a few hours on a rare and beautiful sunny weekend here in the UK at least...? it took many years to get rid of Linda's wordsalads... and now you seem to be accusing regulars of not acting quickly enough in a period measured by hours?

Nono, we have many, many beautiful sunny weekends here in Australia, and we are totally on top of the skeptics too. ;-)

But seriously, I suspect that the "not acting quickly enough" was a combination of resenting (or merely pushing back against) bippy123's prior advertising of the fact that "a skeptic is on the way!" (and that he was relying by implication on us guys to demolish that skeptic) as well as a general tendency amongst Skeptiko regulars to assume good faith (as you seem to imply). My position probably comes from assuming that bippy123's perspective based on his prior interaction with these folks was accurate. Is that biased? Potentially, yes, but it's a bias I'm willing to correct if it can be shown to be inaccurate.
 
Nono, we have many, many beautiful sunny weekends here in Australia, and we are totally on top of the skeptics too. ;-)

But seriously, I suspect that the "not acting quickly enough" was...

Well we'll never know now, as the thread was deleted after just a few hours.
 
Back
Top