About the Randi Restriction in Geller threads

[Czarcasm]

@Colibri

I’ll admit that I did not consider all of the ramifications before giving my instructions in that thread.

Based on the rule as it presently stands, I would say that:

1. Peter Morris is prohibited from mentioning or referring to Randi on this board. This includes oblique references where he does not mention him by name. He is not allowed to engage other posters on the subject when it comes up.

2. Other posters may not attempt to goad Peter into discussing Randi. They should not bring up Randi in threads in which Peter is posting, where Randi is not pertinent to the subject of the thread. Otherwise they are free to discuss Randi.

Peter is free to engage in the Uri Geller thread, as long as he does not mention or discuss Randi. He is not to respond to other posters on the subject of Randi. Other posters should not ask him about his position on Randi or engage him on the issue.

It’s unfortunate that these restrictions had to be put in place, but they were prompted by Peter’s previous obsessive behavior on the subject. We were faced with the alternatives of either banning Peter, or not being able to have any discussion of Randi that didn’t become a massive trainwreck.

I will not issue a warning to Peter for bringing up Randi in that thread (and he was apparently the first to do so) to give him the benefit of the doubt that he may have thought it was OK because he didn’t mention him by name. However, I want to make it completely clear that any reference to Randi by Peter, even obliquely, in the future may result in a warning and review of his posting privileges.

Thank you.

[x-ray_vision]

forget it

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Colibri

I also don’t believe that Peter brought him up innocently either. He was trying to skirt the rule. However, I am choosing to refrain from a warning on the understanding that the next time he attempts something like this the consequences will be more severe.

The problem I am having: you do realize this is the 2nd time he has violated this condition, yes?

[Fenris]

@Colibri

That’s pretty much what the rule is.

Then…damn. I have no complaint and applaud your flawless l33t mod skillz.

[x-ray_vision]

@Fenris

Again: “Peter, shut up about Randi. Period. Everyone else, don’t ask Petey about Randi, but otherwise carry on.”–simple, clean and non-restrictive to everyone else.

@Colibri

That’s pretty much what the rule is.

@Fenris

Then…damn. I have no complaint and applaud your flawless l33t mod skillz.

See my point in post 37. Randi has probably done more than anyone else to expose Geller. Peter can talk about Geller, but the rest of us can’t mention Randi in a rebuttal to whatever claim about Geller Peter has made.

[Colibri]

@Mr.Miskatonic

While I have seen that sorta happen in paranormal threads (along with people mentioning PM after someone brings up Randi, usually in a “uh-oh, now PM will come along”) I would like to see an example if this happening in a more mundane thread or thread that isn’t explicitly about PM.

That’s pretty much what happens. My example about a movie thread was admittedly extreme and was for purposes of illustration.

@x-ray_vision

Peter can talk about Geller. If anyone has a rebuttal that includes Randi (which is very likely), they can’t post that rebuttal because of the particular poster that is being rebutted. Yeah, that’s fair.

You should be able to post the information without directly engaging Peter Morris.

@Mr.Miskatonic

The problem I am having: you do realize this is the 2nd time he has violated this condition, yes?

Can you provide a link to the previous example? Did he receive a moderator note for it?

[x-ray_vision]

@Colibri

You should be able to post the information without directly engaging Peter Morris

What? If it is Peter that is talking about Geller, how can we post a rebuttal that regards Randi without it being considered engaging Peter? If we can’t engage Peter regarding Randi, Peter should be restricted from engaging us regarding Geller.

[Fenris]

@x-ray_vision

See my point in post 37. Randi has probably done more than anyone else to expose Geller. Peter can talk about Geller, but the rest of us can’t mention Randi in a rebuttal to whatever claim about Geller Peter has made.

My understanding is that we can discuss Randi, we just can’t ask Petey about him. Mainly because that will lead to yet another Petey-Anti-Randi-rant[sup]tm[sup].

So a discussion could certainly go (if I understand Colibri)

Teeming Million: So…what about this Geller twerp? Can he really bend spoons with his mind?

Poster A: Of course not, despite his claims. He’s been shown to be a fraud on numerous occasions

Poster B: Yeah, The Amazing Randi debunked him multiple times

Peter Morris: GELLER IS JUST A MAGICIAN! NO-ONE DEBUNKS MAGICIANS!

Poster B: So, Teeming Million, there’s actually a book Randi wrote about his experiences. Some of these include…etc
It’s not that Randi can’t be discussed, it’s that Petey should be shunned when it comes to this topic.

(IMO, IANAM, etc)

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Colibri

Can you provide a link to the previous example? Did he receive a moderator note for it?

Here you go.

And here is possibly another (marley seems to be clarifying the use of ATMB.

[Colibri]

@x-ray_vision

What? If it is Peter that is talking about Geller, how can we post a rebuttal that regards Randi without it being considered engaging Peter? If we can’t engage Peter regarding Randi, Peter should be restricted from engaging us regarding Geller.

Don’t quote him or engage in direct argument with him. You can go ahead and post your information that refutes what he posted.

[Leo_Bloom]

Whatever you do, don’t mention the War!

Colibri, I appreciate the problems you’re sorting through, including slippery slopes and “exemptions.” That the powers that be are benevolently tying themselves into knots for some anonymous dude is actually pretty mind blowing for any large social forum at all on the Net.

[Colibri]

@Mr.Miskatonic

Here you go.

And here is possibly another (marley seems to be clarifying the use of ATMB.

I was asking for examples of where Peter alluded to Randi without mentioning him by name. Those examples don’t fit.

[Colibri]

@Leo_Bloom

Colibri, I appreciate the problems you’re sorting through, including slippery slopes and “exemptions.” That the powers that be are benevolently tying themselves into knots for some anonymous dude is actually pretty mind blowing for any large social forum at all on the Net.

That’s why they pay us the big bucks!

[Fenris]

@Leo_Bloom

Whatever you do, don’t mention the War!

Colibri, I appreciate the problems you’re sorting through, including slippery slopes and “exemptions.” That the powers that be are benevolently tying themselves into knots for some anonymous dude is actually pretty mind blowing for any large social forum at all on the Net.

There’s been too many bannings of entertaining…um…one-track posters*–I want Petey to talk about Randi often as he wants, in the appropriate forums. Just like I wanted Jack Dean Tyler to talk about evil mohels roaming the streets circumcising innocent babies and Seethruart to talk about magic moon-men that only HE could see in pictures and whatshername–the chick with the waitress fixation…you know, the “If you refill my drink without asking me, you’re A BAD WAITER because I might want something different!” person.

We need more entertaining…um…one-track posters, not less. I’m willing to deal with weird rules if it means we don’t ban them as fast.

*Man, it was hard to find an ATMB appropriate phrase.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Colibri

I was asking for examples of where Peter alluded to Randi without mentioning him by name. Those examples don’t fit.

What I stated:

The problem I am having: you do realize this is the 2nd time he has violated this condition, yes?

I said nothing about howhe violated the terms of his restriction, only that he has done so, has been called on it by the moderators.

[x-ray_vision]

@Colibri

Don’t quote him or engage in direct argument with him. You can go ahead and post your information that refutes what he posted.

WTF? We can post information to refute what Peter posted and that wouldn’t be considered engaging in direct argument? If someone wants to rebut what Peter has said and that rebuttal regards Randi, we can’t quote what Peter wrote as to aware everyone reading what it is that is being rebutted, yet we can still post the rebuttal? What’s the point of this? It’s just pretending that Randi isn’t being mentioned to Peter when of course he is. You need to work on these new rules a bit.

[Fenris]

As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, I’d like to suggest to the Powers That Be that Morris be allowed to have one (1) Pit thread and/or 1 (one) GD thread THAT HE STARTS about Randi at any given time. I don’t want to see him allowed to hijack other people’s innocent, helpless threads, but c’mon. A Morris rant on Randi is always good readin’.

C’mon. In your hearts, you know this is a good rule.

[Colibri]

@Fenris

There’s been too many bannings of entertaining…um…one-track posters*–I want Petey to talk about Randi often as he wants, in the appropriate forums. Just like I wanted Jack Dean Tyler to talk about evil mohels roaming the streets circumcising innocent babies and Seethruart to talk about magic moon-men that only HE could see in pictures and whatshername–the chick with the waitress fixation…you know, the “If you refill my drink without asking me, you’re A BAD WAITER because I might want something different!” person.

Seethruart wasn’t banned, but went away on his own. (His last post was in 2001). I don’t recall that the waitress person was banned either. Jack Dean Tyler was a pretty obvious troll.

[samclem]

@Fenris

As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, I’d like to suggest to the Powers That Be that Morris be allowed to have one (1) Pit thread and/or 1 (one) GD thread THAT HE STARTS about Randi at any given time. I don’t want to see him allowed to hijack other people’s innocent, helpless threads, but c’mon. A Morris rant on Randi is always good readin’.

C’mon. In your hearts, you know this is a good rule.

It’s always difficult to decide whether to allow your cat to go outside, maim a chipmunk, then bring him to the house and let him play with it. The mods/Admins have to balance the differing sides of what is humane.

[Colibri]

@Mr.Miskatonic

I said nothing about howhe violated the terms of his restriction, only that he has done so, has been called on it by the moderators.

The reason I didn’t warn him this time was to make it completely clear that he is prohibited from mentioning Randi even indirectly.

@x-ray_vision

WTF? We can post information to refute what Peter posted and that wouldn’t be considered engaging in direct argument? If someone wants to rebut what Peter has said and that rebuttal regards Randi, we can’t quote what Peter wrote as to aware everyone reading what it is that is being rebutted, yet we can still post the rebuttal? What’s the point of this? It’s just pretending that Randi isn’t being mentioned to Peter when of course he is. You need to work on these new rules a bit.

OK. Until then, let’s try to cooperate, alright?