Certain topics should not be allowed on sciforums

Just a reminder - a few relevant extracts from the site rules for those who may have forgotten:

Sciforums - Rules, posting guidelines and advice to members

...
While we welcome contributions that reflect the diverse range of perspectives and experiences of our members, we do not believe in an unlimited right to free speech. Rather, we seek to provide a welcoming environment conducive to the critical examination of topics of discussion.

....

Posting on sciforums is a privilege, not a right. All material published on sciforums is at the discretion of the moderator team. Moderation may include editing, moving or deletion of posts or threads. Moderator actions are usually documented in some way, though members may not be contacted personally. The forum rules and guidelines are enforced at the discretion of the moderators. Sciforums is moderated bearing in mind the stated aims and ethos of the forum; we will not be bound by the letter of the rules as written, but by the spirit of the rules.

....

D.3.3. These rules and guidelines are enforced at the discretion of the moderators. Moderators may judge in any particular instance that in all the circumstances no action is required. Sciforums is moderated bearing in mind the stated aims and ethos of the forum; we will not be bound by the letter of these rules as written, but by their spirit.

....

I.6. Hate speech, defined as the vilification of a group of people based on their race, religion, country of origin, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation etc. is not tolerated on sciforums.

....

I.15. The intentional posting of false or misleading information is unacceptable. This includes posting half-truths, i.e. leaving out relevant and known information to give a false impression.

....

I.18. Trolling is the posting of inflammatory posts with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional (often angry) response. Trolls aim to disrupt normal on-topic discussion, often by raising tangential or irrelevant hot-button issues. Trolling posts are intended to incite controversy or conflict and/or to cause annoyance or offence.

....

I.19. Repetitive or vexatious posting is considered trolling. Sciforums reserves the right to reject contributions that have been widely canvassed in the forum and to reject contributions from participants who seek to dominate the discussion.

....
I.21. Propaganda is loosely defined here as posts that have no aim other than to proclaim the superiority of one belief over another, particularly where the belief in question is the subject of controversy or argument. Examples include preaching one’s own religion as the only true religion, proclaiming that one’s favoured political party is superior to the opposing party, or proclaiming that one group is morally superior to another. The signature of propaganda is that it consists largely of a member expressing strongly held personal beliefs about things that can’t be proven, supposedly in the interests of achieving some important aim (e.g. world peace, governing the nation effectively, ensuring that people act morally).

....

23. Propaganda can include material copied verbatim from other websites, books or articles, which demonstrates a clear bias for or against a particular belief. It does not include articles which examine an issue objectively and rationally, looking at both sides of an issue.

....

26. Evangelising is where the poster’s main aim is to spread the word about his or her beliefs, without being interested in real discussion or critical analysis.

....

27. The moderator team takes a dim view of propaganda, preaching, proselytising and evangelising. Engaging in these activities is not guaranteed to get you banned, but you do so at your own risk.​

 

Syzygys:

 

Gustav:

What are you asking for? What sanction do you think is appropriate?

Also, where can I find the original post? Nobody appears to have hit the "report" button on that.

 

Really?

Goebbels?

Exaggerate much, GeoffP?

________________________________________

JDawg, it doesn't bring us joy or comfort to have a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denier on this site. Not at all.

His threads, to date, and he, have been heavily moderated. He has been banned twice, numerous of his threads closed down.

So what is the purpose of keeping him around?

He has so far, brought nothing to the table to show "his proof". So the purpose of allowing him to debate this issue is to provide him with the correct information. If he persists in ignoring said correct information and keeps telling lies, then we would have something to go with.

Personally speaking, I don't like the thought that we are allowing this. But in saying that, allowing him to formerly debate this issue means that we now know who believes like this... If others then come to this site with the same beliefs, we can then refer them to the debate and advise them that this has been done here before and therein contains the correct information.

To cite an example, we need only to look at the paedophilia issues we had in the past. It needs to be asserted, that discussing paedophilia isn't banned on this site. What is not acceptable is further encouragement or pushing of paedophilia. And what happened with the threads that discussed the topic was that some certain members, who shall remain nameless, not only supported it, but also encouraged it and attempted to state the benefits to the child if said child had sex with an adult, and they went further and also discussed how an adult could have sex with a child or have sexual relations with them and avoid physically damaging the child. That is not only unacceptable by any standard, but also placed this site at legal risks and also would have put us on the radar of paedophiles - we do have underage members here and we do not want paedophiles on this site. And so, we made a conscious decision to ban any discussion that went along the lines of the acceptability and benefits of paedophilia.

Now applying those rules and that standard to Holocaust denial... What we can do at present is present the true facts and if with the presentation of the truth and all the evidence that clearly states the Holocaust did in fact occur and over 11 million people were murdered, results in this individual refusing to accept those actual facts and instead comes up with empty assertions and lies, then we deal with the person as a troll. Because then, he would be a troll. But then, for future reference, the information would be there.

What this also does is that it would be one of the very few times where this forum can get together and tell such individuals, with facts, evidence, and truth, that such ideology is not welcome here and we can do that by pointing them in the direction of the facts and evidence.

This isn't a positive experience. At all. It's a disgusting notion that anyone can actually deny the deaths of over 11 million people. But we can't pretend such individuals do not exist. What we can do is try to educate them and show that we don't find it acceptable by telling them the actual truth. That isn't providing them with a platform, but it is providing them with the correct information to allow them to hopefully make the correct decisions.

 

JDawg:

In the case of the pedophilia issue, yes.

For example, see the Formal Debate on the topic here:

[thread=90901]Debate: Pedophilia is Pseudoscience[/thread]

We have a search facility. Or you can use google. And in the case of Formal Debates, they are all listed in a sticky thread in the Formal Debates subforum.

Yes. And I'm sure they'll soon be told.

We have no general policy of banning new participants from having a discussion that has been had before. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there is such a policy.

The issue of closing troll threads and the like is quite a different one from banning discussions on certain topics.

I'm an administrator here. I have been here since 2001. It is my job to keep up with threads that are posted here. I also note that I said "As far as I am aware...". And, I will be very pleased to be corrected if I am wrong.

So, while I am confident, I am not 100% sure. You've said you don't want to go digging, so why labour the point?

We take our debaters as they come. He proposed a debate. If he is not equipped for it, that's not our problem.

Also, again you seem a bit fixated on the idea of a "definitive" or "ultimate" debate. You're not likely to see any of those on sciforums. What would such a thing look like, anyway?

I don't particular care what he has an interest in hearing. I am under no illusions that any debate will immediately change his views about the holocaust.

He has made claims. We've invited him to put his best case. Let's see what happens.

Yes, here we are, with you and a number of others calling for censorship, and with me arguing against it.

In the meantime, I'm waiting for steampunk to decide whether he is going to going through with what he said he'd do and actually debate me, or whether he will wimp out.

I think that one ban was for trolling, and the other was for the insult you mention. You're right - we don't have a rule about "intellectual dishonesty", because that is often in the eye of the beholder and too hard to police. We do have a rule about knowingly lying, however.

I have never said that this will be the final debate on the matter. It will, however, certainly be the final debate with steampunk on the matter.

 

Gustav:

Thankyou. I took a look. That post was not moderated at the time, back in April. I don't know if there were any complaints at the time about it. The particular comment you complain about was in the context of a longer post, and another similar post followed that one. In between, a moderator responded to the first post. And then, several posts later, the entire thread was closed.

I can only assume that the moderator who looked at that thread decided that the most appropriate action to take was to close the thread. Clearly he or she did not think that JDawg should be banned for his comment.

I am not going to second-guess the original moderator's decision on this matter.

Correct.

No. The locked thread was on the topic of whether there was a controlled demolition of the World Trade Centre. The debate Proposal currently under discussion is that no planes hit the World Trade Centre.

I have censored nothing.

I note that it was not my decision to close the recent thread on the supposed controlled demolition. That decision was made by another moderator. I did close a subsequent attempt to repost the same discussion, which amounted to an attempt to go around the moderator involved.

 

JDawg:

What I'm saying is that when a new poster comes here and posts something that has been done to death before, there are usually a number of long-term members who will immediately inform the newbie of that fact.

Endless rehashing is not the same as a few repeats of similar discussions.

Just to be clear: there is no policy that discussions on a particular topic can only be had once. Nothing in the site rules says anything about that, either. Nevertheless, moderators do have the discretion to shut down certain discussions where they have been widely canvassed. As a matter of practice, I would say that this usually tends to happen when we get a spate of threads on essentially the same topic over the space of a few days or a week or two.

Ok. Sorry I misled you. My mistake.

I obviously should not have used the word "definitive" there, because it has led you on a wild goose chase.

The word I should have used, perhaps was something like "substantive" or "substantial".

Interestingly enough, I had a similar exchange with quadraphonics just a day or two ago. He couldn't think of any reason why a public discussion forum like this one would allow discussion of topics he considers to be "pseudoscience".

Let's see if you can do any better.

Why would a public discussion forum with some aspirations to the scientific testing of claims want to allow debate on a pet topic of holocaust deniers?

Any ideas?

Hint: we don't expect to change their minds (or the minds of many "pseudoscientists", for that matter).

This is an issue I might have to take up with Fraggle, then. Nevertheless, the ban was justifiable on the grounds of trolling.

Well, I can say that, almost certainly, no further debates on that topic will be allowed that involve steampunk.

As to the wider issue, we'll need to take each case as it comes. An identical debate proposal would be unlikely to get up. A sufficiently different one might. It depends on a whole bunch of factors.

Having said that, I stand by my original assessment that similar debates would be "unlikely" to stand.

No. But, arguably, that's not quite the same thing as saying that there is "an Islam" that demands that its women dress in cloth sacks (or whatever the original comment was).

 

There's currently an open Proposal thread on a similar topic. If our newest member is interested in taking part in that debate, he might suggest a team debate. Or, if steampunk doesn't put in an appearance, he could do it single-handed.

On the other hand, my impression is that our new 9/11 denier friend may have been a one or two post wonder. I'm sure he's incredibly busy over at 911truther.org or whatever it is, spreading the truth about the Great Conspiracy. Then again, things may have gone quiet out there, so they may be looking for somewhere new to proselitise.

But you seem keen, Gustav. Why don't you join the debate yourself? You know, you could post some actual content on sciforums, instead of just meta-content.

 

Yeah, Gustav. I'm employed as a professional thinker. I do the hard yards so you don't have to straing your pretty little head.

Edit: *duh* strain