Customize

A humble proposal.

Discussion in 'Support Questions' started by Anonymous, Oct 21, 2010.

  1. Miranda Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    That's a good point.

    As for controlling information, the idea of a forum designated for speculation is a way of acknowledging that speculation IS useful. There is also reason to distinguish it from fact. Personally I'd rather see speculation cultivated than infracted--but I would also like to see people learn to create strong arguments in which each point is documented. Both kinds of thought are important, and each has its uses.
  2. Craic n Smack Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Since we're all srs bzns 'n shite.

    Speculation needs to be in context and not in its own sub-forum. Individual users need to decide for themselves how much weight they apply to any specific instance of "speculation" and mods should think twice before infracting.

    An illustration. Moniker X says "blah, blah, blah."

    Forum User A has known Moniker X well for many years and trusts him thoroughly. Forum User A concludes that blah, blah, blah is quite likely TruFax and valuable intel.

    Forum User B doesn't know Moniker X but has been impressed by the quality of his past posts and knows several people intimate with Moniker X who vouch for him. Forum User B concludes that blah, blah, blah may have some merit.

    Forum User C doesn't know Moniker X but has had personal experiences very similar to blah, blah, blah and concludes that Moniker X's claims ring true even if the specific instances cannot be verified.

    Forum User D is relatively new and dismisses Moniker X's claims because they cannot be currently substantiated.

    Four different users have four different, but valid, views on how speculative the information is.

    Warning: I'll write an exhaustive post distinguishing the dox call on true anonymous boards versus WWP; don't make me do it.
  3. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I think the suggestion of having a forum where tangible speculation would be encouraged instead of infracted got mixed up with moderation of threads & posts.

    Where do you suggest people submit threads like:


    • Would scientology do X or Y if Z occurred?
    • Do scientologists do X or Y?
    • Do scientologists have any involvement in X and Y event?
    Sorry for giving horrible examples but i think you get the point, many if not most threads spark speculation which is fine, but there is as of yet no place where you can start a speculative topic.

    As for others, i have no words for what some of you seem to believe... that we want to be far stricter than we are, and that we want to use you as emotional punching bags, handing out infraction upon infraction. The contrary, it would be a breeze to moderate less, it would be refreshing to explore new theories without the flaming that now generally comes with it.
  4. Miranda Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Yes. If we wanted to give more infractions, why would we be suggesting fewer infractible offenses?

    I think a lot of people posting in this thread understand that. Those that don't are good evidence that infracting is a problematic way of moderating.

    I really think that the best thing for moderators to do is to participate in a non-opinionated way in threads, and to try to help them stay on-or-about-topic, or to wander usefully.
  5. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Where would people hold the discussion on whether the mods are humorless nazi's bent on stifling everyone’s speech? I think it is kind of a given but still i feel it would perfectly fit in the realm of a speculation forum.
  6. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Trufax forum.
  7. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Irrational, incorrect bollox. Try arguing that on an anonnet IRC channel over and over and over at high frequency (put it in CAPS if no one takes you seriously). Behaviour matters, and must be influenced through management, in ALL mediums - to protect the medium itself.
  8. Craic n Smack Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    While your question is addressed to the community at large, I'd like to give a quick reply.

    The short answer is the threads should be posted to "Sci Disc" if sci related, "Chit Chat" if not sci related and "Web Iss, Req & Cons" if attesting to the humourless Nazi nature of mods. We undermine ourselves if we ask mods to be arbiters of the quality of content.

    Please give me a day as I'd like to present my case in full.
  9. Intelligence Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Yup. But only if I post too early in the morning and the mod hasn't had their first cup of coffee yet.

    Just teasing Miranda :)

    The Infraction was reversed after coffee,..LOL
  10. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Which is precisely why we are having this discussion. Constructive community feedback is something we lack, we do hear about the problems of moderation but are not often if ever presented with viable alternatives. I do not think there is an end all solution for non moderator content quality assurance but any step in that direction is a good one.

    Eitherway, i will gladly read your case tomorrow.
  11. Miranda Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Publicly shamed! Oh no!

    Hangs head in shame.
  12. Re: A humble proposal.

    How would you handle a speculation within a non speculation thread?
    I agree threads that start with wild speculation or unfounded speculation have a place but most of the infractions in the past have been speculations within existing threads.

    I mean seriously guys. what part of speculation worries you so much?
    All it takes is a member or mods to point out lack of evidence and let the remaining members make up their own decisions.

    Out of any forum i know if dox is not available this one will have a reply of "dox or it didn't happen" so the self governing is already in place. Any further moderation is just heavy handedness.

    Also, and this is very important, some of us have information which we cannot provide dox. The following are some of the reasons that have come up in the past;
    1. in providing dox or certain information we will namefag our sources or give CO$ a clue to where they came from..
    2. in scientology much of the important information is spread by word of mouth. For example we get three reports from around the world that OSA is showing a video in which an anon is saying they were paid $250,000 in order to protest. No dox whatsoever on this but our sources are reliable. Still this information may be important to someone somewhere. Getting infracted for that as tinfoil is patronizing considering many people are risking so much.
    3. There are legal reasons. Anyone in the know, knows what i mean.

    An academic must start with a premise. A policeman must start with a crime and evidence. Then speculation on various theories must all be investigated and narrowed down. This is standard investigatory procedure to anyone who seeks the truth on a subject. Once the evidence is gathered, a judge or peers make a determination.

    As far as i can see, anon has been valuable at two thing; investigation and exposure. Exposing the inner workings of CO$ and presenting it in a digestible, if not lulzy manner, to the greater community is anons forte.

    Lastly, if you look at the recent Panorama episode you will notice that whenever Sweeney charges the celebs with OT alien stuff, Tommy Davis reply is to patronize sweeny by calling him tinfoil. We have to start really admitting that it is Scientology "tech" to create something so preposterous that it sounds ridiculous when you stand up and expose it. They have been hitting Gerry Armstrong with this for years. Lets admit it, it is quite well documented that they do this both in victims ecperiences and also in following the technical writings of Hubbard. So would it not be fair to say that CO$ trolls are also applying this tech-nique?

    Isn't it better we distance ourselves from CO$ techniques so as not to give their trolls fodder?
  13. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Surely big pharma has a conference room we could use. :D
  14. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Hey Skep, remember when Chanology was awesome and filled with smart creative people? Me either.
  15. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    :( I remember.
  16. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    When speculation has no chance of finding foundation (because it's lunatic, normally, but not always), the threads can go on and on and on (and on and on) with absolutely zero value being added (and on and on) infractions can put a quick stop to this (and on and on) but perhaps the mod focus shouldn't be on initial tinfoil speculation (and on, pages and pages of it) but on dead-horse-beating in a thread.

    Dzzzzt.

    Did you miss the endless threads on FormallyIN or whether the cult tried to murder the retired spook's dog? That's not self-governing.

    I totally agree there are appropriate forms of speculation. That does not mean all speculation is non-damaging to the site.
  17. rof Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    lol ocmb stylee text coloring=infraction

    whatever skep said I think so too
  18. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    No, you've just convinced yourself that you remember.
  19. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    He said you needed a coat of lipstick and people should stop making fun of you.
  20. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    You raise some very excellent points but i think that due to the lack of definition --what is considered tinfoil speculation-- we are effectively talking about two different things. Unfortunately it is virtually impossible to have a definite and clear delineation of what is and what is not tinfoil speculation, but that does not exempt us from determining both extremes: Sufficiently backed up statements and paranoid delusions. What is being suggested is that whatever falls between those two limits will not be infractable, which more often than not is the case already.

    In most cases tinfoil infractions are given for highly bigoted speculations such as:

    A little adopted girl died at a scientologists house; the scientologist in question was running a slave trade because that is what scientologists do.

    Now this is a relatively extreme example, but i hope you get the point that such posts detract from the discussion and our message. Not so much for those whom have grown a hatred with anything related to scientology but to casual observers, rightly wondering if we are here to expose scientology abuses or relentlessly bash scientologists.

    Now we do not want to shun people from giving speculative theories a try, therefor if we adopted the use of a speculation only forum, a poster like the above could make a thread and say something along the lines of:

    This little girl died at a scientologists house, would it be worthwhile to investigate whether the scientologist in question has been enslaving children?


    If the above post was made within the original thread it could very well stay there, but someone could say: I think your propos is a bit far fetched, lets continue this discussion in the speculation forum: link.

    The point being that a thread which is dealing with a fact : Little girl died under unknown circumstances, should ideally as it develops contain more facts, not speculation. Would you agree it is responsible, ethical, and shows a little respect towards those we try to inform to not serve them biased opinions but facts?

    There are obvious situations where dox can not be provided, your examples make that clear --and i am unaware of such scenarios being infracted. It still doesn't change that as you referred to it: academic research, has a plausible answer as product. But why do we have to conduct such research in a forum which is supposed to be dealing in facts? What is it exactly that prevents people from using a forum dedicated to speculation, and that if anything comes out of it the result is posted and discussed in a forum where higher standards of credibility are expected?

    The suggestion is that we foster a way to have investigation and exposure as distinctly separate things, to not put out untruths and or unfounded allegations in the same forum. I really do not see how this is a bad thing. It also would offer a catalyst for people to express themselves without having to say "inb4 tinfoil" or even fear being infracted. We (the mods) do not want to be the select few to judge what is and what isn't true, and what is and what is not speculation. This is a way for the community to handle speculation on its own without it contaminating credible reports and accounts.

    We do not want to use Scientology methodologies, hence why we ideally and whenever possible should deal in facts.
  21. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.


    killjoy
  22. Re: A humble proposal.

    yes i did miss it because i chose to. What about you?
  23. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I wanted to know how the dog was doing.
  24. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    In retrospect :

    If you have three independent sources, meaning there is an ostensibly larger amount of people knowing about that video. The risk of those sources being outed due to said video being published would be smaller. What would pose a far bigger risk of exposing oneself is for example showing pictures of David Miscavages new gym, somehow there is no problems with that. Do you see where i am getting at?

    For someone apparently finding patronizing troublesome you seem to infer people whom are "in the know" are less ignorant about what risks are involved in whistle-blowing, isn't that a tad... condescending?
  25. rof Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    sue, that dude is a total fag

    Just paint another moonbat on your fuselage and let's move on.
  26. Re: A humble proposal.

    I can only speak from personal experience:

    Rufus:

    spet8h.jpg

    Miranda:

    k4gpjs.jpg

    Not sure whether your argument is aligned with the reality of what has been going on. Maybe have an investigation into infractions and see whether this is a single case or an across the board thing. Maybe the problem has been with unclear definitions as understood by the mods?
  27. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    You failed to address the entirety of my post, you seemed to be such an upstanding chevalier; valuing and demanding integrity. I am very disappointed.

    But let's address those two infractions:

    Rufus warning you for threading the line of tinfoil speculation.

    The thread was about Leona Valley wildfires. After which you inferred barbs was going to be fairgamed for mentioning such trivia.

    Miranda's infraction for tinfoil speculation:

    The thread was about Aaron Saxton's New AVO by Cyrus Brooks. You inferred --not mentioning you had it on good authority but that it was your guess-- that Aaron Saxton was being payed off by scientology to have him shut up.

    Are you serious? Those are the very extremes i am referring to in one of my previous posts. But how would you know, you ignored it. I clearly stated that there is no way to point out where the line is between plausible truth and delusional thought.
  28. Re: A humble proposal.


    Point 1 was not meant to be confused with point 2. Point 2 is that some information is spread through word of mouth and there is just no dox available. It doesn't matter if there is three or one or whatever.


    i didn't intend to be condescending in respect, just pointing out the realities we face. the point remains: There are legal reasons why some information can't be released and it has nothing to do with protecting whistle-blowers in this point. It has to do with clearing up evidence.

    lol
  29. Re: A humble proposal.

    No I inferred she was being fairgamed and further, that some mod would probably infract me for that inference.

  30. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I have heard from 5 different people that there is a vast conspiracy to enslave mankind, it has something to do with bilderberg and the queen of china. It doesn't matter whether i heard it from five or one or whatever people, rumors should be taken for true, no questions asked because the people i am referring to have proven transmitting reliable word of mouth grade information.

    Regarding the legal reasons, the only reasons that come to mind are a: there is a courtcase, b: law enforcement should know about it but it only managed to get into, not out of the gossip who is best informed circlejerk.

    Quit throwing out blanket statements for throwing out idiocies like you have, if it was such sensitive information you should not even make mention of it existing.
  31. rof Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Nuke the fucker.

    At least make its nick shorter so it doesn't break my 95% tables.
  32. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    On one hand you demand less moderation, we offer you a possibility to take your responsibilities and save us time moderating, but you don't want to constructively talk about that subject.

    Congratulations we strayed away from the topic, i am going to stop responding to you, you are a waste of my time.
  33. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    So you did understand the rules, knew how they were likely to be interpreted. A cynic might wonder if you didn't intend the mod comment as either bait, or a foil.

    Why you only got a warning in that context IDNK.
  34. Re: A humble proposal.

    Sue, you surprise me by trying to enter a thread by encouraging discourse as opposed to personal attack and end up in personal attack. The points remain. Have a think about it. No need to get all angry because i don't agree with you. We were talking about what has happened in the past and how we could resolve those issues in the future. It's obvious that there have been problems and you are eager to resolve them. A sorry would be a nice start?

    That is blatant tinfoil speculation. I am actually trying to help the best way i can. The way i see it is the ability to communicate freely is a right not a demand, particular so, given we are anonymous. It's a fundamental human right. Legally someone owns or rents the servers and has the right to cut information how they see fit. At best I am pointing out the potential hypocrisy of such a stance.

    As such i am not demanding less moderation but rather highlighting why this thread indeed exists and offering ways in which in the future they can be averted. In that respect it is constructive from my perspective but at the end of the day, you can make your own decisions. If you have failed to see what i have been trying to say then perhaps i should learn how to communicate a little bit better.
  35. BusinessBecky Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    If many believe so, it is so. Ever had an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously? Everyone knows that when you post something, your at the mercy of the Mods. They make the judgment calls and do so for the WWP cause. I see too much quantitative expectations, where most anyone who has had higher education would understand that the quality of the argument is important than someones ego.

    You can make a very convincing argument and still be very wrong about the facts. And with the kinds of nonsense that goes on here, you become more annoying when the argument requires a certain level of quantitative knowledge that concedes with your reputation. Otherwise ITT is just all about the Marines, Muslims and Motherhood written mostly by people who never shot a gun, never read the Koran and don't have a uterus or a vagina.

    AAAADN8a6ZsAAAAAAF5gmg.jpg?v=1248376859000.jpg
  36. rof Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    uterusgun.jpg

    blatantnudity.png
  37. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Why, when I image search for a pic of a female muslim marine, do I get a guy giving a dog a blowjob? The interwebs are so very very twisted.
  38. Re: A humble proposal.

    I'm interested in the truth mate. If you can show me where my facts are flawed i will be the first to admit the wrongness of my perspective.

    An argument is qualified by propositions based on facts. For example, the proposition that the sun comes up every day is a fact The conclusion that therfore the sun will come up tomorrow is a speculation and a conclusion which is highly likely. You need the truth to make a good argument. You can't just make an argument up. It doesn't work like that. However, the converse is not true. You can know the truth and not know how to structure an argument. That frustrates people. I acknowledge that. I wish they taught more critical reasoning in schools so communication would be easier and i am willing to teach anyone the very easy structure of critical reasoning or suggest they go HERE to learn it. It will see you far.
  39. Miranda Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I suggest that we go back to questions that bear directly on the issues at hand and avoid derailing or being derailed into ad hominem responses. (This thread is not about isupeonedDavidmiscaviage and it's not about specific mods--it's about possible changes to the rules.)

    Here's a relevant question: Since dox are generally agreed to be important, what should constitute dox?

    Is it dox to say, "This is fact--I saw it with my own eyes"? (I'll give a hint on this one since it's commonly misunderstood. According to journalistic standards, one eye witness of a specific event is not enough to establish fact. Two or three witnesses of the same incident may be. There's a LOT that doesn't get published because there aren't corroborating witnesses. Even in court, an eye witness account is not the strongest evidence--why is that?)

    Is it dox to say, "This is fact--I heard about this on the grapevine"?

    Is it dox to say, "I can't reveal my sources, but here are the facts as they presented them"?

    Is it dox to say, "Given X's history, this is surely what's happening"?

    And please don't tilt at straw men--keep in mind, please, that I'm not, and sue's not, arguing that speculative information simply be thrown out--we are suggesting that rather than throwing it out, as we currently do, we look for a way to give it its deserved place but try not to allow it to distract from fact-based discussion.

    The testimonies of exes, for instance, have unique anecdotal value. But one of the reasons that testimony hasn't yet shut down CoS is that for good reason, more than that is required in court.

    One further comment: academics and others who begin with hypotheses then seek to prove or disprove those hypotheses. How do they do that? By looking for.... evidence. What is evidence? That is the question. It's different for a philosopher than for a police officer. But bear in mind that "X is a Scientologist, Scientologists kidnap children, therefore X kidnaped a child" is not only poor reasoning--it refers to real people, and is a real accusation. If the conclusion is not based on fact, it could be libelous.
  40. Re: A humble proposal.

    No one has provided Dox that David Miscavige beats his staff.
    There is a good example to start with Miranda.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins