Censorship here excessive?...

[kleindoofy]

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

Well, I do. That's a level of paranoia I find it difficult to identify with. ...

I couldn't agree more.

(Have I ever disagreed with grant hutchison? If so, I can't imagine why.)

[TheHalcyonYear]

I don't think there is censorship here, but I strongly believe that, on an issue -- scientific or otherwise, if a poster goes against what many believe, it can be a real up hill battle to defend a position and not get suspended.

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

I don't think there is censorship here, but I strongly believe that, on an issue -- scientific or otherwise, if a poster goes against what many believe, it can be a real up hill battle to defend a position and not get suspended.

I've disagreed with the majority three times on BAUT. (What can I say? Folks around here are usually right.)
Once I was wrong, and admitted it.
Once I convinced a number of people that I had a valid point.
Once I walked away because the discussion was going nowhere.
During none of these adventures did I come remotely close to being suspended. It's not about disagreeing; it's about following the local rules. And the local rules at BAUT are childishly simple to follow.

Grant Hutchison

[captain swoop]

If people are polite and answer questions then why would they be suspended?

[TheHalcyonYear]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

If people are polite and answer questions then why would they be suspended?

No, one can be completely polite and still find themselves on the wrong side of the "no politics" rule. This leaves some people to make certain statements that cannot be rebutted because an appropriate rebuttal would be considered political.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

No, one can be completely polite and still find themselves on the wrong side of the "no politics" rule. This leaves some people to make certain statements that cannot be rebutted because an appropriate rebuttal would be considered political.

Thank you for biting your tongue and not dragging politics into BAUT.

Did it hurt a lot?

[SolusLupus]

Every day, it hurts.

[Neverfly]

I find myself agreeing with THY.

(I've been doing that a lot lately and I'm starting to get concerned...)

Nonetheless, her point is valid. Maybe not everyone experiences it. But it remains valid.

"Just follow the rules."

What an easy statement to make. But not as easy to follow as it is to say.

Oftentimes, people are unaware of exactly how they ended up outside of the rules. Where shades of gray are concerned, a person can end up straddling the line very easily.

Many people express gratitude at how "clean" BAUT is kept.

I cannot help but be reminded of Ratchet in Robots (2005 animated film).
He dreamed of a Clean City. Everything shiny.
The problem is... Sometimes we just need a little dirt.

I admit, BAUT is not that bad. It's not super clean and I actually do believe that most of the Mods are humanly aware of the limits most of the time.
But the point remains valid and it's worth thinking about a bit before rejecting the notion off hand.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Oftentimes, people are unaware of exactly how they ended up outside of the rules.

Seems pretty simple to me...don't discuss politics.

Of course I can understand why those who would bend the rules would cry "I was unaware" when they are caught, but don't think that it's fooling anyone else.

[TheHalcyonYear]

Originally Posted by 01101001

Thank you for biting your tongue and not dragging politics into BAUT.

Did it hurt a lot?

Yeah. Attempting to put some things into perspective, disagreeing with the status quo, is political. Making jokes about a day for the remembrance of how the Harvey Milk murder was handled is good fun. Suggesting that there is a point to it is political.

Does it hurt. Only those who are too closed minded to see.

[TheHalcyonYear]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Seems pretty simple to me...don't discuss politics.

Of course I can understand why those who would bend the rules would cry "I was unaware" when they are caught, but don't think that's it's fooling anyone else.

Yeah. Just leave the issues one sided and move on to something else. Why attempt to set the record straight if the response would be political.

[TheHalcyonYear]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I find myself agreeing with THY.

(I've been doing that a lot lately and I'm starting to get concerned...)

I'm sure Dr. House would say that it must be neurological. There is medication though.

(Hey, on the plus side, it's never lupus)

[pzkpfw]

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

Yeah. Just leave the issues one sided and move on to something else. Why attempt to set the record straight if the response would be political.

The line has to be drawn somewhere. We will never please all of the people all of the time.


If the statement that causes the need to "set the record straight" is itself breaking some rule (e.g. politics); report it.


Otherwise, what would you propose? We allow political debate here? We allow the first reply to a statement to be political but no more? What's the solution...?

[TheHalcyonYear]

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

The line has to be drawn somewhere. We will never please all of the people all of the time.


If the statement that causes the need to "set the record straight" is itself breaking some rule (e.g. politics); report it.


Otherwise, what would you propose? We allow political debate here? We allow the first reply to a statement to be political but no more? What's the solution...?

No, I think that the no politics debate rule should be equally applied. If you look at the "CERN embarrassing, scientist “criminal association with a terrorist enterprise" thread, you will see an example. I was warned for the following post in that thread:

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

I am assuming nothing. I am pointing to known abuses of the rights of individuals in the past and waiting to see that such abuses do not get repeated. Yeah responsible governments like the one that placed so many in camp X-ray? It's way to easy to put people away and say that the evidence is secret.

However, the post which this was in reply to:

Originally Posted by flynjack1

You seem to assume a lot. Just how do you know that law enforcement did anything illegal in making this case? Do you really think the press knows what has actually transpired and could accurately convey it if they did? The loss of nuclear technology to those who would misuse it is serious to most of us. I would prefer responsible governments hold this information carefully. Whether this was the case I do not know but I would reserve such lambasting until the facts show otherwise.

was apparently deemed appropriate since no warning was issued. It seems that if one is present an argument refuting "responsible governments" in this case as a flawed notion, one must break the rules.

How about equal application of the rules to both posts.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

Yeah. Just leave the issues one sided and move on to something else. Why attempt to set the record straight if the response would be political.

Well, I try to avoid responses that involve hot-button political controversies. And, yes, sometimes it is best just to move onto something else. There have been many times on this board where I have written a post, and thought better of it and canceled out, or I edited a long (and possibly rule breaking) post down to a short response with fewer political overtones.

You might try something similar.

[TheHalcyonYear]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

Well, I try to avoid responses that involve hot-button political controversies. And, yes, sometimes it is best just to move onto something else. There have been many times on this board where I have written a post, and thought better of it and canceled out, or I edited a long (and possibly rule breaking) post down to a short response with fewer political overtones.

You might try something similar.

I do not post in anger. However, I do think that most/all issues have two sides. I think that if one side is presented the other side should also be presented as well. What I am objecting to is having one side of some issues being allowed while those who disagree are suppose to walk away. I think it's a matter of fairness and the apparent lack of it for some issues on this board is causing me to rethink my presence here.

[SolusLupus]

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

I'm sure Dr. House would say that it must be neurological. There is medication though.

(Hey, on the plus side, it's never lupus)

Wait, whut?

Oh, that lupus.

[TheHalcyonYear]

Originally Posted by SolusLupus

Wait, whut?

Oh, that lupus.

Of course. I hope you don't think I was taking about some saint, there's a no religion rule here. I also couldn't be dissing Lupus Canada; we have to act as though that the Canadians are our friends here.

[nauthiz]

I was under the impression that that warning was addressed to the thread in general, and the quoted text was just there to illustrate the particular kind of discussion that was deemed to be problematic. It seemed it could just have easily have been one of many other comments.

[TheHalcyonYear]

Originally Posted by nauthiz

I was under the impression that that warning was addressed to the thread in general, and the quoted text was just there to illustrate the particular kind of discussion that was deemed to be problematic. It seemed it could just have easily have been one of many other comments.

Then perhaps the moderator would be so good as to take a moment and clarify.

[SolusLupus]

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

Of course. I hope you don't think I was taking about some saint, there's a no religion rule here. I also couldn't be dissing Lupus Canada; we have to act as though that the Canadians are our friends here.

No, I was referring to my name.

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

"Just follow the rules."

What an easy statement to make. But not as easy to follow as it is to say.

Oftentimes, people are unaware of exactly how they ended up outside of the rules. Where shades of gray are concerned, a person can end up straddling the line very easily.

I don't buy it.
By their nature, borders get a little fractal and indefinite when you look at them up close, but they're nice simple lines on the map when you stand well back.
Likewise, it's trivially easy to follow BAUT's rules, if you stand well back.
It's only if you start poking at the border, testing its limits, that you run into grey areas and matters of interpretation.
If you don't want to run foul of the rules, quite poking the boundaries. If someone else is poking the boundaries, leave them to it and move on to something else. It's really that simple.

Grant Hutchison

[Get Out]

There are many questions of interpretation here.

[djellison]

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

That's a level of paranoia I find it difficult to identify with.

As an admin of another forum - it's a level of paranoia I can totally identify with and think is more than justified in this modern forum era of drive-by spamming.

Participation in this forum is very very easy - even for those proposing ATM/C theories. People proposing ATM/C theories forget one simple thing. They could always say "I don't know" or "I don't have any evidence" when asked direct questions.

Instead, they thrash out, squirm, resort to insults etc. The OP of this thread is a superb case in point.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

No, I think that the no politics debate rule should be equally applied. If you look at the "CERN embarrassing, scientist “criminal association with a terrorist enterprise" thread, you will see an example. I was warned for the following post in that thread:However, the post which this was in reply to:was apparently deemed appropriate since no warning was issued. It seems that if one is present an argument refuting "responsible governments" in this case as a flawed notion, one must break the rules.

How about equal application of the rules to both posts.

OK, I'll own that one.

No, flynjack1's post was not deemed appropriate, it was inappropriate. It was posted within a couple of minutes of my warning. It is quite possible that he was typing his in and hadn't seen my warning when he hit enter. I decided to give him the benefit of doubt.

I also had some grave doubts about some other recent threads including the Harvey Milk one and the two different ones about the Noble Peace Prize.

It is a very fine line we walk. I try, believe it or not, not to over-moderate, not to call foul on every single possible infraction. I try to assume that people are adults and just sometimes stray a little over the line. If necessary, I'll give them a little push back - for example, my warning in the CERN scientist thread was very gently written, as was Captain Swoop's later one.

Yet, judging by half the threads in this part of the forum, our moderation is onerous and heavy handed (over-moderation, censorship). I'll admit, it often makes me wonder and even threatens sometimes to make me both gun-shy to act, or to say "what the heck" and just embrace my inner censor and go on a banning spree (if you are going to be accused of the crime anyway, you might as well go commit it).

I have resigned myself to the fact that no matter how I do it, large chunks of the membership will think it is too much or too little. So I'll continue to try to find the best path I think I can.

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by djellison

As an admin of another forum - it's a level of paranoia I can totally identify with and think is more than justified in this modern forum era of drive-by spamming.

I think we're at cross-purposes.
I was suggesting that posters (like the OP) who immediately suspect censorship and secret agendas simply because their posts go through a moderation process are behaving in an oddly paranoid manner.
I have no objection to that moderation process or to the (mild) paranoia about unwanted posts that it reflects.

Grant Hutchison

[slang]

Originally Posted by Swift

Yet, judging by half the threads in this part of the forum, our moderation is onerous and heavy handed (over-moderation, censorship).

Eye of the beholder, IMHO.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

I don't buy it.
By their nature, borders get a little fractal and indefinite when you look at them up close, but they're nice simple lines on the map when you stand well back.
Likewise, it's trivially easy to follow BAUT's rules, if you stand well back.
It's only if you start poking at the border, testing its limits, that you run into grey areas and matters of interpretation.
If you don't want to run foul of the rules, quite poking the boundaries. If someone else is poking the boundaries, leave them to it and move on to something else. It's really that simple.

Grant Hutchison

You don't have to buy it. Essentially, what you just said was: Act paranoid and if you have any doubts whatsoever; say nothing at all. Kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

A person does not need to be poking and testing limits. They can be discussing normal issues that take place in average conversations and suddenly find themselves crossing a line.
Is it possible a little extra thought could have spared them that? Probably, yeah. But we're human. We're not going to be perfect all of the time.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

They can be discussing normal issues that take place in average conversations and suddenly find themselves crossing a line.

Here? PM us, I'd like to see this example.

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You don't have to buy it.

That's fortunate.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Essentially, what you just said was: Act paranoid and if you have any doubts whatsoever; say nothing at all.

Nope. What I said was the rules are trivially easy to follow. There are vast landscapes of human discourse that you can wander freely without being in the remotest danger of a rule violation.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

That would depend critically on what your purpose is. The rules are, of course, intended to defeat some purposes.

Grant Hutchison