A humble proposal.

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

  1. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Who the fuck cares about doxs, seriously?

    It's just so blown out of proportion.
  2. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Everytime I read DOXS it's so very boring
  3. Miranda Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Okay, that's correct as far as I know--that it hasn't yet been formally documented. So, what is your point about it?
  4. Re: A humble proposal.

    While i am happy to continue this discourse i still think that any speculation is valid. As long as it is stated as such. For example: "I think CO$ is planning to arrest sparrow because they are starting to videotape him bait him and LRH says in HBO order 666 that..." by stating "i think" you are just providing your opinion. Another example: "i was told by an anonymous source that the LRH event is going to be held in Melbourne" By stating that it is an anonymous source, people can make their own choice on what to believe. Another example "considering that there is a LRH policy on fairgaming critics and OSA must infiltrate critics (HBO order 667) there is every possibility that OSA has infiltrated WWP" In this case The statement obviously shows a hypothesis. A valuable hypothesis if the propositions are true. These are all tools as long as the understanding is there. Miranda, for example the infraction above which you gave me I said "i had the impression" Now lets assume this differentiates from fact?

    However, a blatant statement which says "David Miscavige will murder someone soon" is a statement. Still before an infraction is given it is probably good practice to clarify. an answer such as "where did you get this information from?" or "and based on what premise?" will give the right of reply. I believe that covers WWP legally and puts onus on the originator for defamation and not the board.

    Now, how about "COS is a cult started by the devil himself. The first devil was Aleister Crowley who called himself the beast 666 and LRH states in tape number XXX that he was his good friend and his son said "my father said he was the next antichrist after Crowley died which is when Scientology started" Therefore COS is an instrument of the devil"

    That is where it becomes difficult and i would accept an infraction without clarification because the propositions are correct however, the conclusion is not strongly related to the facts of the propositions.
  5. Re: A humble proposal.

    its just a real life example for which to discuss ideas to find boundaries. That is the point. For the rules to be effective and lack hypocrisy they should be tested against a series of examples.
  6. Miranda Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Okay, good. I think that's an excellent test case. I'm going to wait to respond and give others a chance. I suggest you (isupeoned) do also, for a while--you and I have been pretty dominant in this thread.

    To clarify: isupeonedDavidmiscaviage has raised an issue regarding the requirement (or not) for dox: Since there is not yet incontrovertible evidence that David Miscavige beats his staff, how should we treat that assertion on this website?
  7. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    In terms of moderation, I don't think that is so relevant. Clearly there are times when the speculation is tinfoil - this applies more to cases where it's not.

    In those cases, it seems to me the problem is less with the original post, than the endless go-nowhere posts (by both sides, otherwise it wouldn't be endless).

    Perhaps mods could ease off of infracting initial posts for tinfoil where the poster might just have a point, and instead look to infract (again - potentially both sides) when it disintegrates into a pointless 'you don't have dox'; 'I can't provide dox but it's still probably true' argument.

    ie: a new rule about dead-horse-beating, yes, but hopefully with a net reduction on mod load.
  8. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Socratic method != critical reasoning. Gah! Socratic method is a teaching method, that naturally encourages critical thinking among students, but of itself has no relevance in a forum context.
  9. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Multiple publicly documented corroborated eye-witness accounts qualify - just as they qualify in law.
  10. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Troll. I hope. Utter bollox anyway. What get's blown out of proportion is the argument that follows the doxless speculation. It's utterly appropriate to point out that if a supposed fact can not be backed up, then everyone should be sceptical. But only once or twice, not for ten pages.
  11. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    So "COS is a cult started by the devil himself. The first devil was Aleister Crowley who called himself the beast 666 and LRH states in tape number XXX that he was his good friend and his son said "my father said he was the next antichrist after Crowley died which is when Scientology started" Therefore perhaps COS is an instrument of the devil"" is okay, since 'perhaps' explicitly indicates it is speculative.


    If everyone knew 'standard format' for arguments from Phil 101 or whatever, you might have a point. But they don't.
  12. Miranda Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    The individual asserting dislike of dox posted twice, anonymously, making the same point. Just for the record. I figure answering him/herself once more will make him/her officially a troll.
  13. WhiteNight Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Leave you guys alone for a few hours and there's a derail for 2.5 pages...

    I think the second infraction shouldn't have been and under the proposed system it would've just been highlighted as tinfoil or whatever. It would have given him a chance to post the youtube vid he just refered to.

    Some things you want to say and commenting on the probability of getting an infraction for saying it doesn't constitute saying it'd be deserved.

    Right, now back to the point lads and ladettes.

    You've been arguing over what would constitue dox. Now, under the proposed system, an unfounded statement / speculation would be highlighted as such, giving the poster a chance to provide dox (the forum itself would scream dox or gtfo anyway, as already stated) and it shows that yes, it has been noted. Of course, if the posters saying something like "DM killed a Sea Orger because she was going to blow with evidence of him raping someone" that's infraction territory.
    If they said "I heard on the grapevine that DM killed a Sea Orger because she was going to blow with evidence of him raping someone, I don't know what to think about it." Then this is highlight territory until dox are provided.

    The thread is about the rules and possibly reforming the system, not drama. This is what the proposed reform would've prevented. Make your points minus the drama and PM eachother if you want to be at eachother's necks.
  14. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I agree, should someone say that they have heard something from a possibly credible source, they should be given time to collect the appropriate dox or at least be able to provide a name before an infraction is slapped on them. I also think that it's irresponsible to argue back and forth in a thread about whether or not dox matter or not. Private messaging was a gift bestowed upon us by his noodly goodness and should be used as such. It makes the thread go off-topic (despite it being a tad related to the subject) and should be moved into a new thread that's relevant and the people who care, or have an opinion, can post there. I guess what I'm trying to say is:
    There's no point in wrestling with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.
  15. Re: A humble proposal.

    You are really taking infractions way too seriously. I issued the infraction to OP because:
    1. It was funny
    2. I was holding him to his own standard in his point number 10
    3. Because he made two personal attacks.
    If you get an infraction it really isn't a big deal. It just means you need to re-examine your thinking.

    At the moment infractions carry no further penalty than getting a private message unless you get to 10 points which is incredibly difficult to get to in the span of 7 days.

    I issued that one, and some others in that thread because you implied that this post was made by an agent of Scientology.

    Furthermore, nearly all of the "blatant tinfoil speculation" infractions I have issued are because people accused another user of being a Scientologist because of something they said.
  16. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

  17. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    It's true. The few small infractions I've had all expired long ago. I daresay someone would have to work pretty hard at being a dick during the course of 7 days, and ignore all infractions and PMs from mods, in order to get in actual trouble on WWP.

    Infractions are given with a reason for the infraction. Whether or not you agree with an infraction given to you, it should make you stop and think. Getting multiple similar infractions should be a wakeup call to re-examine your posts.
  18. Miranda Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    After waiting a while, here's my comment on what to do with the accusation that DM beats his staff: I think it's is an excellent example of an assertion that's speculative but not trivial and that therefore should be systematically developed, whether in a tinfoil forum or elsewhere--without derailing the thread in which it originated.

    As to giving posters more time to prove undocumented assertions--that's exactly what a tinfoil forum would do. It does help to stipulate that tinfoil is undocumented and to indicate your intent to document it, but it's not always enough to footnote a cry of "FIRE!" with "*(maybe, check back with me later.)"

    Also, I agree that users accusing anonymous posters or others of being Scientologists is silly, ad hominem, derailing, and usually from all indications inaccurate--at best, obviously unsupported by real evidence. Anyone who's been on the receiving end of this kind of misplaced accusation (I'm guessing many of us at some point) knows how ludicrously wrong it can be.
  19. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I like your idea of a tinfoil popcorn forum

  20. Skeptic1337 Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    There is a subtle difference between:

    Marty beat me while I worked for him!!!!! [known person]


    I know marty beats people because so and so said so.

    One is fine and why you don't sue DM for all he's worth is beyond me, the other needs a couple of adjectives / adverbs to bring it from speculation to theoretical discussion.

    I don't know why this is a difficult subject to grasp though nor why you would need a seperate sub forum for it.
  21. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    To have a place where these :

    Are not right next to :
  22. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    You are right: I overreacted and missed the point and humor entirely.

    My personal thinking is to just avoid getting them altogether. I do take an infraction seriously, however not enough to reach for tinfoil or baww about it. The times I did get infracted, I KNEW that it deserved it after the fact. Soo.....

    The point I was trying to make in that clusterpost was that you mods have better things to do with your time than put up with BS "Report Post" requests over some user griping about old memes or bad puns.
  23. theLastAnon Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Another wall of text, sorry. Please to read.

    Just 2 cents...the argument for a separate "speculation" forum was not appealing to me initially, and I'm not certain I'm completely "for it" yet. (Not that me being for it or against matters one tiny bit.) However, the argument being made for it is much more fully developed now, and I can see why others would think this could work.

    SO, I'm for trying it and seeing what happens. I'm betting it is also a simpler solution on the back end programming-side than coming up with a way to designate posts (via color, font, etc.) as speculation (but this is speculation on my part). :p

    If I could throw out one more suggestion that is semi-related: It would help raise the level of discussion in all threads if the OP was updated with new info, links, dox, etc. on a consistent basis. Some posters are good about doing this (oh hai, Sponge) and others are not. Some mods are good about doing for it posters (especially if OP was an "anonymous" posting).

    Keeping the hard facts in one easy to find place in a thread makes a difference in a thread in a number of ways: helping to prevent unwarranted speculation, helping prevent derailing and helping latecomers catch up without having to read a 20 page thread to catch up. It also is of great benefit to those stumbling across a topic via a google search.

    I think that worked very well in the early Rex Fowler and Organic Liaison threads, for example. There's plenty of speculation in those threads, but the summary post of verifiable dox helped delineate the discussion in those threads as factual or speculative. Speculative comments were investigated and if found to have merit, that info was then added into the summary post.

    As noted, the same could be true of a speculation forum, where ideas are investigated and those with merit and documentation are brought back to the original thread in the original forum.

    In all threads, it should be expected behavior to keep a thread OP updated if you start it, and mods can do it for a thread started anonymously (which doesn't mean you lazy faggots should start all threads with an anonymous post).
  24. Re: A humble proposal.

    Well, a separate forum for obvious tinfoil thread starters is fine but what about threads that are hijacked by trolls? as where most of the problems have occurred in the past.

    I am putting this as a hypothesis and not fact but what if there was a coordinated campaign from Scientology to bury information they deemed important? I think there is overwhelming evidence to suggest they do this behavior to other critics and critic sites and the policy is there.

    In this case how can we develop a system without the potential for trolls to dissuade discussion on important areas as a protective /B/up when things heat up?

    I think TheLastAnon has some seriously good points.


    What is more important in terms of scale- Personal attacks or speculation?

    For me i would have thought personal attacks in an argument is usually what creates degenerative posting if left unattended. A personal attack in a way of making an argument is the lowest form of gaining acceptance. If outside of an argument it is very anon and thick skins an all but it in terms of people placing attacks when someone has provided a well thought out argument should be number one on the list of infractions above worrying about speculation, no?

    If you look at the Scientology websites, they totally attack their critics with made up lies and we all know about the fair game order. Firstly, given that, it is a sign of a fucked up group who doesn't have truth on their side and have to resort to name calling in order to control opinion. Given we are the antithesis of that why don't we go about protecting against it?.

    Secondly, as known behavior and LRH policy followers we know that is the exact technique that Scio trolls will use if any, because ironically, he was a fucked up idiot whos arguments were full of holes and couldn't accept he may be wrong (egofag).

    Unfortunately, it is also a technique of many anons as well... and possibly un-reconcilable.

    What i have personally found disturbing in the moderation in the past is that a personal attack will go unwarned and a speculation will be infracted. And i'd like to know why some mods do this?
  25. Miranda Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I think these are great suggestions. I'm guilty of not updating OP's very often. There are a few reasons for this. One is that I somehow got the impression that mods shouldn't (almost) ever change other people's posts. This may have occurred in my imagination. Maybe sue can clear it up. It does seem reasonable to me that mods should help keep these posts updated. I've been hesitant to do it is all.

    Also, mods may not (I don't) have time to read every thread, let alone register all of the information that needs to be updated at any given time. Maybe other mods are more focused, but I think we need people to tell us exactly what to update and when, if we're going to do it. The other thing is that in some cases people request such changes by posting the request in the thread, where mods may not see the requests. Kiss of death! Use the report button to report the OP, please, because this places the request prominently, with the relevant link, on a reports page, which mods check frequently.
  26. Miranda Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Personally, I think we need to be able to infract for a few things. Counterproductive posting of all kinds, including trolling, is one of them. I think we need to make a serious effort to get more or less on the same page about when to infract--fewer rules and clearer.

    I also think (unpopularly, I'm sure) that specific posts, and not threads only, should be candidates for the tinfoil forum, if we have one. Sometimes the ideas are in one post only. I do NOT think posts should be deleted from threads and moved--rather that such posts should be marked in some way as speculative, and copied (not moved) to the tinfoil forum... if any.

    I don't mean to oversimplify--but if the rules cover derailing, trolling, speculation, and other distracting forms of posting, then such posts will probably come to our attention and we'll deal with the authors whether by infracting or via PM or whatever.

    To me that's like would you rather breathe or eat? Both are important. Personally I react strongly to people attacking others and tend to jump to their defense. But I can't guarantee that I see all attacks, or recognize them all if I see them.
  27. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Agreed. Good idea to flag a post and then copy it to a tinfoil forum.

    I've seen too many decent threads dumped into the dome, just because of a minority of deliberate trolls.
  28. BLiP Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I remember the last time there was a similar festival of "mod angst" about what to do with the board etc., someone came up with the idea of removing the option to post anonymously. Remind me, why was it decided that option was not viable?
  29. Re: A humble proposal.

    I think a mod infraction should come after a clarification which is polite and non assuming. Can this work mods given your experiences? This will alleviate Modnazi feelings.

    All personal attacks in an argument environment should have precedence where possible. Or if we have the thick skin rule then alleviate other rules on speculation to match. Otherwise the hypocricy is just too plain to see and circle jerking will continue irrespective of infractions and banning...

    When a mod is being argued against effectively, as they are the administrators, should have the thickest skins of all in order to protect themselves from their own rules.
  30. Miranda Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Because some people need to post anonymously for self-protection, mainly. Also, new people sometimes post anonymously before they're confident to post under their names. And sometimes people prefer not to have their names associated with certain ideas. But the most important one is protecting people, I think.

    But the idea still comes up from time to time.
  31. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I like post anonymously, just because it's anonymous - I don't see the value in a track record. But then I'm pretty well behaved. Anonymous posting shouldn't have anything to do with moderation, 'cos the mods can see who it is, see who's been naughty and who's been nice. But it removes a chunk of personality politics.

    I don't remember things being any better before anonymous posting was available, and I don't believe removing it will be in any way helpful. I like the recentish change with the thread+poster hash. That's enough.
  32. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I for one think it's an awesome feature and should NEVA! be removed :D
  33. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I fully realize that i said i wouldn't address your posts any longer, but having had a night's sleep i'll spend some time replying to you --mostly for the comical factor, but also hoping i can get you to convey the points you want to make.

    Whether it is that you do not comprehend correct grammatical structures or that you have a certain disability, preventing you from forming coherent sentences --I want to help you. Not because i am compassionate --helping you write sentences that we the mods can understand is in its entirety self-serving. I can sense that not getting your point across is infuriating you and that it, figuratively speaking, is fueling your animosity towards mods-- incendiary comments towards mods being a product of that.

    I firmly believe that avoiding future confusion and hard feelings is to both of our benefits, so please bear with me and the tone of this post, which could be misunderstood for a cheap stab. I would hate for this to be interpreted as an ad-hom while all i am trying is to point out the pitfalls of meta discussion and its ensuing tangents --we're all guilty of not keeping it simple and unnecessarily overcomplicating otherwise trivial matters.

    I will try to set an example and translate your posts to a more humanly readable format.

    "In order to diminish animosity towards mods i suggest that infractions come only after a polite and impartial warning of misconduct. Mods, in your experience could this work?"

    OR more simply put:

    "Do the mods think it is possible to warn people politely before issuing an infraction?"

    When part taking in a discussion Mods and administrators should be held to an equal if not higher standard of conformity to the rules and forum etiquette.

    Is this what you wanted to get across? If so, may i suggest you cut down to the point, omitting needless words.

    Thank you.
  34. TinyDancer Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    DM does beat his staff.

    I think that's an example of something that has been adequately documented by several eyewitness reports made in newspaper and television interviews. No tinfoil necessary. No further dox required. It is no longer speculative.
  35. theLastAnon Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I don't think it's inappropriate for mods to add additional info and links to an OP. Usually there's a comment like "Mod Update: " and then the pertinent info. Mods really shouldn't have to update many threads, just the Anonymous ones for the most part - so long as users adopt OP updating as normative behavior. That can be effectively accomplished by shitting all over their thread until they fix OP in my opinion, but there may be better methods.

    Some questions regarding the report button and how it functions on the mod side of things:
    Do certain mods have responsibility for specific forums and sub-forums when dealing with reports?
    How many reports are made on average daily (general impressions are fine here, no dox requested)?
    Is there a way of prioritizing reports as they are made?

  36. TinyDancer Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I don't think we need a tinfoil forum. We have YSOSRS. Threads of the calibre of those under discussion, and individual posts, can be moved to YSOSRS.



    Also, I tend to not infract speculative posts where the poster highlights that the content is speculative, as the damage is minimised. eg. "I don't have dox and this is speculative, but I can't help but wonder if..."

    "I think..." does not adequately highlight speculation, IMO.
  37. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    • Excluding the local forums, no mods have exclusive responsibilities over any specific forum.
    • The amount of reports roughly varies anywhere between 7 to 30 depending on how you look at things.
    • No there is currently no way of prioritizing reports.
  38. Re: A humble proposal.

    YES! What i would do to be naturally inclined to speak such eloquence.
  39. BLiP Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    One way to look at things is that Anonymous is our "brand" and needs protecting. I suggest making anonymous posting a privilege that has to be earned and can be taken away when abused.
  40. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    It has not been documented. It's a bunch of stories from people with very good reasons to slander Miscavige. Now does that mean that the stories are necessairly made up? Absolutely not. But it would lead a reasonable person to view these reports with skepticism. Reciting the mantra of DM beats his staff as if it were truth is little more than simple minded sophistry.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins