It’s an interesting issue. Are skeptics to hold that reason has a power to convince persons like myself and Snake–perhaps intelligent but wanting to believe? Is there a type of person that one simply must give up on? Is it worth it to try to convince Christians and New Agers that atheism is correct? Or does it not matter very much? Perhaps skeptics just enjoy being right and gloating over how they are not stupid like the believers.
The board is dedicated to fighting ignorance, as you say. Saying so implies that one can win the battle against ignorance in at least a percentage of the people. That also implies that people with some degree of ignorance must come to the boards, engage with the skeptics, and change their beliefs.
If, as you seem to wish, get a board with only skeptics on it, then you won’t be able to fight ignorance, at least not when it comes to theism and the paranormal. These are the questions you must ask yourself.
Five and a half years ago, David B invented a cyberspace device called the Mod Hat, which has been copied on a large number of message boards with no relationship whatsoever to the SDMB in the ensuing years.
What it says, effectively, is that “I as a member here am posting as a member, entitled to debate, have opinions, tell you what you’re full of within the rules, etc. – until I run across a rule violation. At that point, I ‘put on my Mod Hat’ and make a ruling, not as a member on one side of a debate, but as an impartial arbitrator charged with enforcing the rules evenly.”
A lot of the enjoyment of boards like this for staff is being able to participate in one’s capacity as member, including debating hot-button issues if that happens to be the staff member’s thing. By using the “Mod Hat” to keep the two roles separate, he or she is entitled to have the best of both worlds.
There arises the interesting problem of a member “brinking” – making comments arguably within the rules but shaving the edge of the precipice. In such cases, I’ve seen moderators make comments, without any overt hat-donning, that are intended to bring the member back from the edge without a need to overtly warn or otherwise move into rule-enforcement mode. That is IMO what Czarcasm’s comment quoted above was intended to do.
That’s a great point Polycarp, and I agree with Czarcasm’s recommending that that point of the debate be continued elsewhere since the thread slid from ghosts to divining rods & James Randi. The problem with the “hatless moderatation” that was done in the thread is it could lead to ambiguity as is the case with Aeschines starting this thread. A good litmus test, IMO, for these hatless comments would be to see if the same comment would be appropriate for a member to make instead of a moderator.
The member would likely receive the famous ridicule of being a “junior mod”. Try it and see. Pick a thread that has gone off-topic a bit and touched a controversial subject. It shouldn’t be hard to find. Descend into it and post only this:
“A small note to Poster A, Poster B and Poser C — this is supposed to be a debate about Topic A, not a Topic B Pit Festival. If you want to cast aspersions on Topic B, start a thread in The BBQ Pit.”
And then I’ll come here and say “b-b-b-but Liberal told me to”!
Yeah, that’s the problem with Czarcasm’s comment being “hatless” and why it wouldn’t pass that litmus test. The comment in the ghost thread needed to be made, and made by a moderator.
I agree with the OP, IMHO, if a mod found something objectionable with a thread, they should use the “Report this post to an administrator” function like any normal poster and let someone more independant handle the matter. Most of the time, they’ll be right but it eases tensions on both sides if the person laying down the big stick is not seen to be a person with a side.
And yet I will continue to do it anyway. I believe I have a responsibility to share in the overall smooth operation of the community. It take a village to run a message board.
A small cohort with ideologically driven alternative worldviews find that they can not dominate a discussion on a message board.
The other posters are holding them accountable for their claims, and they’re not convincing anyone. Instead, they’re looking like idiots.
So, they try dirty tricks. Maybe it’s personal attacks outside the Pit. Maybe it’s hijacking other threads. But in someway, in their zeal to dominate or ruin everyone else’s fun, they break the number one rule of the board: They become a jerk.
The mods slap 'em down.
Then comes the whining. The complaining in the Pit. The attempt to try and convict the mod who reigned them by using a court of popular appeal. Unfairness they cry.
When they realize that they have not raised the angry lynch mob they thought they’d raise, they try new tactics… rules lawyering. “Did the mod follow procedure? Was this the right mod for the right forum? Do they have to don the mod hat first? Don’t they have to read me my rights? Can they really be impartial enough to moderate me if they don’t agree with me? Even if they’re participating in the thread in question?”
Did I mention they’ll keep opening up new threads all over the place in order to find a way to beat the system?
Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you this season’s town fools who are attempting to whine the moderators into submission: SnakeSpirit and Aeschinus.
The mods are much more patient with this crap then I’d be.
As this goes on, here’s what to look for: The appearance of Town Fools from the previous seasons who had been rightly slapped down by a moderator and their whining got them no place, too. They’ll be by to throw a few vengeful jabs at the mods. Oh wait, we already see one. Hello, Liberal.
Moriah: how so? I’m not attempting to bring any hostility from elsewhere into this, but to engage in an exchange of views here. Quite frankly, I’ve never seen an enforced Standard Worldview mandated here. If you happen to disagree with the majority, you’d better be damn’ ready to defend your perspective against all comers – but you don’t get ridiculed for holding it, merely for holding it without reasonable justification you can advance and explain.
Czarcasm and I will never agree on matters metaphysical – but we respect each other’s views, because we can each justify why we hold our particular view to the, if not satisfaction, at least understanding of the other. Likewise Mr Moto and I, on matters political. There’s at least one SF fan here whose views on authors I find execrable – but she can justify why she finds “her” authors enjoyable and has problems with the ones I consider great. I could repeat this for well over a hundred other members – Darwin’s Finch on taxonomic theory and Jomo Mojo on glottochronology come quickly to mind – but the examples I give are I think enough to illustrate my point.
So frankly I don’t see the view you’re espousing. To be sure, a majority of the board are socially and politically leftist with a mild nod in the direction of libertarian. But it’s exceeding rare to see a gang-up on someone who doesn’t share their view but is prepared to debate, as opposed to cast aspersions without evidence. If you care to make a case disagreeing with this, I’m prepared to listen respectfully, and then explain to you where you’re wrong!
Hello. I am one of the few who consistently defends the mods. My caution against junior modding was not a jab at a mod. Czarcasm hates me, but he has never been unfair to me moderatorially.
Well said, moriah. While there’s lots of interesting debate to be had on various paranormal subjects, there’s not much point when you’re dealing with someone like Aeschines, who is more than willing to lie if he thinks it makes his argument look better, or someone like peter morris, who is clearly more interested in his celebrity obsession than in logic or reason.
SnakeSpirit, at least, seems to have some sembelence of honesty, although I don’t think I’ve yet seen him post anything I even remotely agree with. But that’s just difference of opinion. At least you can actually talk to the guy with a reasonable expectation that he’ll respond in good faith.
No, because it’s not the issue of ghosts that’s the ‘two-edged sword’ but the issue of ‘true believers.’ Either side that closes its mind to an alternate possibility - of anything - can be cast into the ‘true believer’ crowd. A skeptic is someone who withholds judgement until proof is offered, according to Wester, “suspended judgement,” not automatic rejection. The automatic rejection comes from cynics, not skeptics, and I think most of the “skeptiks” on this board have mis-labeled themselves.
As to believing in “ghosts,” well that depends on what you mean as “ghosts.” I consider myself more of an investigator that a “true believer.” I don’t accept every reported occurance as being the result of paranormal phenomenon. I accept ‘ghosts’ in the terms of Fish’s famous definition under duress
or:
I don’t pretend to know what is causing these phenomenon, whether we are talking about spirits, souls, dead people, conscious energy fields, energy reflections or whatever, but I am a ‘true believer’ in the sense that I am convinced that there are occurances experienced by humans in various forms that remain unexplained and/or unproven which lend themselves to being identified as ‘ghosts’ by those people due to cultural conditioning about what a ghost is assumed to be.
And I think that’s enough to warrant further investigation. That, and the fact that these ‘occurances’ have been around as long as humans have been keeping history, at least.
I fully believe we will find, eventually, the explanation for these phenomenon, and will be willing to accept that when it has been adequately demonstrated.
Wow! You too? I thought I was the only one (so wrapped up in self-absorbtion am I).
I challenged Czarcasm once about being unfair to me ‘moderatorially’ (is that a real word?) and I received a response questioning it but not acknowledging it. It may be a subconscious thing, or it may be that it was recognized but that it wouldn’t be considered wise to admit fault. In any case, for some time after that it seemed the pressure was off me. Since then there have been times I thought I might have been discriminated against, but it was never obvious, and just may be due to the fact that I’m wary of discrimination. In any case, I tiptoe around Czarcasm.
If there’s anything I despise on the board it’s the number of times I see people making unbased assumptions and presenting them as truth.
***Please do me the favor of reading this post in its entirety. Especially if you intend to respond. ** *
Czarcasm, it’s no secret I don’t like the way you present yourself and sometimes the way you operate, but I certainly do not wish you ill. For you to call my concern phony is insulting (well this is the pit, what should I expect? Especially from you!). My concern was, and is genuine. I tried to express it back-channel rather than put it on the board, in order to keep it private, but received no response.
Sometimes I’m better at expressing myself than others. The post you are refering to is one where I was not on my best.
I’m not a medical doctor or a Ph.D. in Psychology, and can’t advise you where to go, you need to make that decision based on your own experience and the observations of people close to you, if there are any (yes that last 4 words was a deliberate jab, but after your comment, I think you deserved it).
I don’t believe in mediums, and you know that! Smarmy SOB.
It appeared to me that recently there have been subtle changes in your behaviour, inconsistancies actually, that were uncharacteristic. I don’t take advantage of stuff like that. I didn’t know if maybe something happened in your life to affect your emotions and attitudes, or if perhaps you might be ill.
Let me give an example. Someone close to me has to take large doses of medicines several times a day, for a physical condition. If they miss a dose or are late, they experience severe changes in their personality of which they are unaware (in fact their changes include a kind of grumpy intolerance that reminds me of some of the behaviour I’ve seen from you recently!). If one of us who knows that person sees that behaviour, we remind them it may be time to take the pain killers. Whether you believe it or not, my concern was genuine, and not an attack. Perhaps I’m out of synch with most of the board, but I think an illness or even mild depression is not a ‘fault,’ nothing to be ashamed of, but something that can be corrected, if necessary.
I was out of line, I suppose. Your health, and even your behaviour, is none of my fucking business. I should have just shut my mouth and hoped you would work it out on your own. Worse, I never should have posted it in this thread; that was a serious error in judegement on my part, and I apologise to you. I was wrong, and I’m sorry. Additionally, I’m sorry if I caused you any embarassment or discomfort by bringing up this issue. I fucked up, and I acknowledge it.
I hope you will accept my sincere apology. You’re entitled to the last word here, and I’ll stay out of your private business from now on.
I think Aeschines and I must like it here. Why go somewhere where everyone agrees all the time? What’s to learn there?
This board is the way it is, not the way anyone wishes it to be (except in the intersection of the individual within the collective). I laugh at people who say “If you don’t want to be like us, get out of here!” That’s like GW Bush and his “You’re either with me or against America” bullshit.
If you don’t like it here Dan, you are welcome to find another board dedicated to closed-mindedness. But frankly, I like the free exchange of ideas and opinions, and the sharing of knowledge I find here. I’m all for fighting ignorance, no matter how long it takes.
Nice piece of fiction, moriah. Actually, I think it’s better suited to comic books. Hey, maybe you can contact Jack Chick! I think this type of one-sided diatribe is right up his alley!
