About the Randi Restriction in Geller threads

I question the fairness of forbidding any mention of James Randi in threads about Uri Geller. James Randi has arguably done more to expose the antics of this fake psychic than anyone else alive, but because one poster(Peter Morris) goes off the deep end whenever he is mentioned, we are unfairly and automatically restricted from using a good amount of evidence gathered by Mr. Randi as soon as this one poster joins the thread. If Mr. Morris can’t control himself, he should be the one to receive restrictions, not the rest of us. Also, does this restriction mean that Mr. Randi himself is forbidden to comment on any thread about Uri Geller if he chooses to do so?

I guess I haven’t been paying close enough attention but could you please post a link to where a ban on mentioning Randi in Geller threads was imposed? And please understand, I’m not doubting you. I just find it bizarre such a ban would have been issued on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance. I mean, we all know Geller is a total fraud and it has been proven repeatedly by Randi, right?

I agree that it makes no sense to bar the rest of us from discussing Randi in a thread not only about Heller, for whom Randi has a particular relevance, but also in a thread questioning paranormal claims. If Peter Morris really can’t be trusted to behave himself then the bar shouldn’t extend to the rest of us, but should instead extend to prohibiting Peter Morris from posting in any thread having to do with magic, the paranormal, debunking, and the like. But, really, if you have to go that far, why nit just ban him altogether?

I think the Mod warning in the GQ thread on Geller was that we couldn’t continue the hijack regarding Randi and Geller’s lawsuits (which is reasonable, it wasn’t really relevant to the OP), not that we couldn’t bring up Randi at all (which is crazy, a huge amount of the material available on Geller is due to Randi, it would be impossible to discuss the former without the latter). The way it was worded was pretty unclear though.

I sent a PM to Colibri earlier today to clarify. So when he gets a chance to reply, we’ll know what he meant in any case.

Kolak of Twilo:

The thread is in GQ, and the aforementioned ban is restated here

Understand this: The ban was specifically on Peter Morris. He is not allowed to mention James Randi or attack those bringing up James Randi after too many threads turned to crap.

The converse of this is that other people may not bring up James Randi in an effort get Peter to break his ban.

Unfortunately, what seems to have happened is we now have a case of unforseen consequences where a thread that rightly should Randi mentioned (due to his prominent criticism of Geller) now cannot have that done.

Exactly. This rule allows Peter Morris to shut down any discussion involving James Randi just by showing up. Once he does, any further mention of Mr. Randi can be labeled as “baiting”.

Got it. Thanks.

Obviously you do not understand the nature of the rule. But then understanding board rules never was Czarcasm’s strong point.

The Rule restricts me from talking about Randi. It also forbids people confronting me and demanding that I discuss Randi with them.

There were plenty of mentions of Randi in that thread. Nobody got in trouble for posting them, and I didn’t respond to them.

And, by the way, making all these accusations against me, which I am forbidden to discuss, seems dangerously lose to breaking the rule. Let’s see what Marley has to say.

FWIW, I think Colibri was more saying that people couldn’t bring up Randi in such a way as to antagonize Peter Morris, not that you couldn’t mention Randi in threads on Gellar.

IMO, shutting Peter Morris down on the subject of Randi is against the stated ethic of this board. Fighting ignorance, IMO, doesn’t mean telling people who you believe are ignorant, to shut up.

I don’t agree with Peter’s conclusions and I certainly question some of his debating tactics and logic, and I’m well aware of the history of this particular topic/incident, but I think the rule is heavy-handed. Sure, if it’s a hijack that derails a thread, that’s bad, but we can’t really have a thread about, say the integrity and methods of paranormal investigators and expect it to contain a frank inclusion of all views. Can’t fight ignorance that’s shut away in the dark.

Can I still talk about the amazing Randy Quaid?

The only problem is that PM seems to be antagonized by any mention of Randi.

Ooooooooooooh, busted!

(Sorry, someone had to joke)

Then this warning is not well worded:

And why did I get warned for discussing e-cigs in the presence of Phillip Morris?:dubious:

Rather than try to effectively enforce an arbitrary and arcane rule wouldn’t it be better to just allow the odd thread to derail. There are enough rules to enforce without adding rubbish extra single user rules. And it’s not like the threads are timeless cultural icons fated for the Library of Comgress. A closed thread is soon forgotten, crap modding lives on much longer.

And this post indicates that’s exactly what he wants:

Except it wasn’t ‘the odd thread’, it was pretty much any thread about the paranormal was being hijacked. It took a lot of closed threads , ruined threads, moderator warnings and claims of hate speech and looooads of other nonsense by the subject of this thread before the mods decided to limit the common factor in all these issues.

Don’t bother. Randi Oakes or Randi Brooks, maybe. A lot easier on the eyes.

There were two common factors, though-James Randi and Peter Morris. I think the wrong one was restricted.