Quick question

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Magical Realist, Aug 10, 2014.

  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,604
    I was banned for a month for posting photos of ghosts and expressing pro-paranormal views in the subforum entitled "Ghosts, monsters, ufos..they are amongst us." Is this now a new policy of Sci Forums, to infract members for posting information that is in fact totally in line with that subforum? It's certainly not been that way in the past.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,323
    IOW: It really should be updated or clarified in the sticky thread as to what more delicate factors constitute trolling in an offbeat section whose very subject matter might be automatically classed as "inflammatory bait" if posted elsewhere on the SF site [in addition to off-topic status]. As it stands, the key item in the ST is only a light intro circa Howdy; yes, we finally built it so y'all come and discuss "UFO, Ghost and Monster sightings and related phenomena". No warnings about that forum being littered with hidden land mines that could still get someone zapped for submitting what would otherwise be among the most damnable offenses in the pure Science Section. The outer appearances of UG&M [and Fringe in general] suggest it is a haven for such ["abominations"], minus any fine print. [Though incivilities, nonsensical flooding, spam and the like obviously / properly still incur wrath from the mountaintop.]

    Note that there was one ominous opinion in the sticky thread presciently stating: "I thought this was a science forum, so why are you introducing topics that have no supporting scientific evidence? Isn't that what the cesspool is for?". But this was unofficial, not from a Mod.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    I was very surprised by your ban, which I protested against.
    I thought that it was totally undeserved.
    In my opinion you are one of the most interesting posters on here,
    although, as you know, I share virtually none of your opinions.

    @JamesR
    If MR posts more pro-paranormal views in the fringe subforums, will he be permabanned?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    From what I can see it looks like the Ban was issued in relationship to outstanding infraction points at the time. What caused MR's ban was a post that basically professed that all televised paranormal investigations were real and proved paranormal activity, which itself was seen as trolling since the statement itself didn't provide any proof to back up the claim and most people (if not everyone) knows that television is for "Entertainment" purposes, which has a nasty habit of slanting things in that direction. (It's therefore difficult if not impossible to take anything as factual)

    The length of the ban appears a little steep in relationship to what was done. As long as MR doesn't start harassing the person that banned him and doesn't post as if thing were absolutely true in regards to "paranormal" materials, then there shouldn't be any issues in continuing to post here (If of course MR wants to)
     
  8. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Wouldn't it be better to accept that some people actually believe in these programmes?
    Yes, it's hard to understand how people could believe in it.
    But people do.
    Thousands, possibly millions of people watch them
    without saying "what a load of codswallop".



    @MR
    Maybe you need to start with a disclaimer.
    "I believe in everything that I say in this thread, but it may not be true."
     
  9. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,604
    Thanks Captain! I really do try to spur interesting conversations by posting provocative threads here. But then "provocative" may be construed as trolling to just upset people. That's not my intent. I want people to speak up, to argue, to express themselves passionately, and to ponder new possibilities, but I'm not pretending to believe things just to yank people's chains. My latest banning suggests expressing dissenting ideas and beliefs is an adequate offense to get one banned. I just wanna make sure that isn't the case before I continue posting in the fringe subforum again.
     
  10. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,604
    I agree. The entire Fringe section implies a readiness to entertain different beliefs and ideas that might not conform to popular views about what is "scientific". But the same can be said for the Philosophy subforum and the Religion subforum. When I first began posting here I launched a thread you may remember on ghosts that was quite fruitful and garnered many astute responses. James R and I debated the evidence of ghost photos and I like to think we had a good time with it. But then the whole thread was suddenly transferred to the Pseudoscience section for some reason. This was before they had a Fringe section. Now there seems to be more tolerance for paranormalist views/evidence. But my recent ban contradicts that. Why scream troll in my face for posting photos of ghosts in the ghost subforum?
     
  11. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,604
    So if I posted for example CCTV video evidence of a chair moving by itself in a haunted theater would this constitute trolling or harassing?
     
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,604
    Many of my threads simply ask is it true or not. This allows the reader to make up their own minds. It also exempts me from flaming accusations of believing in it and being immature and stupid and insane blah blah blah.
     
  13. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    This system of stepping up ban periods leads to some ridiculous ban lengths.
    I don't think that you deserved any ban at all, but three days would have been more like it.

    It's like the 3 strikes laws in the USA.
    Third strike for stealing a bar of chocolate. Sentence 30 Years.

    Unfair.
    Needs a rethink.
    People should be using some common sense,
    not blindly following some arbitrary system.

    Welcome back anyway.
     
  14. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,604
    Exactly! I was thinking along the lines of a 3rd strike jaywalker sentenced to life in prison. At this point any slightest infraction I accrue here will now get me banned permanently. That's unjust imo. There should be a 60 day statute of limitations for past infractions after which you start off with a clean record. This blackballing of members for long past incidents is downright medieval. Even in the real world there is a distinction between misdemeanors and felonies, with the opportunity to actually expunge past violations from your record. Criminals don't suddenly become felons deserving of prison time because of repeated misdemeanors.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2014
  15. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,060
    I am always getting banned from forums.

    While at 39 years old today, i was banned form life at 17 or so, so i am well used to upsetting someone, even though i do not know how or why i get banned, or suspended, lol

    I always state the truth, but people always assume i am doing what ever they perceive. I thought speaking the truth was important, but not on some forums, lol

    I always get banned for nothing, but they always say i am breaking forum rules, but all i am saying is the truth.
     
  16. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    It depends on a persons viewpoint If you posted such a video then my rationale is going to be to identify the myriad of ways that the video could be created to fool people, I wouldn't find it "Trolling or Harassing", unless of course you posted that video in 50 separate threads declaring that it's real proof even though each of those threads has the valid statement that it's bogus.

    In any event, post whatever you want (within reason), if someone gives you an infraction for it, just ask them (politely of course) what the infraction was for and how you can change your post/thread to have the infraction removed, this way it should stop any repeated long temporary bans in the future.
     
  17. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson
     
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Really....

    [HR][/HR]

    Magical Realist

    While the ban system may seem unfair, it is a guideline. One that excludes our personal feelings about the poster from the equation. It ensures we aren't picking and choosing. While there is often talk about redoing or redefining those guidelines, we are still trying to figure out a way to fix the system, so to speak. We do review lengthy bans and there is always a lot of discussion during the issue and after the ban as well and on some occasions, bans can and will be reduced in length. And this has happened in the past with some cases. That is our checks and balances. A general review where all staff are meant to have a say and come to an agreement prior to and after the ban.

    I went back and looked at the thread in question (the one that led to your ban). The issue that led to your ban was the fact that you refused to provide any evidence that the photos/footage you were presenting was not faked. Instead, you believed the onus to prove that it was faked lay on the person saying it was fake.

    I don't know if you noticed, but James R wrote a very good response to your posts and he basically explained why you ended up being banned in the process, whether he realised it or not.

    In short, it is up to you to support your claims and what you present. And I think in that thread, that may have been lacking. Certainly, there is some leeway in the sub-forums in question, but you are still expected to 'dig a bit deeper' to support your claims instead of just solely relying on a photo or footage that may very well be faked to begin with. Saying that you believe it is not faked is not enough.

    That is just my impression of the matter. But James R explained the issues well in his response to you and frankly, it is what he points out was lacking that resulted in the ban.
     
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,604
    No..that burden would rest on those claiming it is hoaxed. The video speaks for itself. I will not be forced to argue for something being hoaxed when I have no reason or evidence to support that.

    So if I posted the video and told people to decide for themselves, do you think people here could handle THAT without having conniption fits over it?
     
  20. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,604
    Since one cannot prove a negative, demanding I prove well-vetted photos of ghosts AREN'T fake is a disingenuous tactic designed to dismiss the evidence. I simply posted photos of ghosts. That's what they're called, that's what they look like, and that's what you will find by the hundreds on google image search. Then claims were made that they were photoshopped. I simply asked for their evidence for this. And they refused, insisting I was trolling. I then posted some old photos that were taken long ago before the age of photoshop, along with authenticating background information on them. Then when I said paranormal reality TV shows provide real evidence for the paranormal, I was suddenly banned by Emnos without advanced notice or anything. And being banned, I had no way to contact anyone in this site. I DID read James R response, which basically repeats the standard claims that it's all faked with absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this claim. Shouldn't the people making a claim provide evidence for it? If you wanna claim something is hoaxed, study the case yourself and show why you think it is. That's not really too much to ask is it?
     
  21. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    That's the point though, If you posted it to Facebook then by all means you don't need to supply any proof, however you are posting to a Science forum which for the most part would suggest that anything posted should be supported by evidence. (This means the burden of proof falls upon the thread creator). I'd assume the reason this was suggested is because some people actually turn here for academic support and both Science and Academies use supporting evidence to back up their claims.
     
  22. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    You obviously haven't seen Jackie Chan's Around the World in 80 Days. Very near the end this happens -

    Monique La Roche: Where's your proof?
    Lord Kelvin: This is the Royal Academy of Science! We don't have to prove anything!
     
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,604
    So a person arguing for evolution has to go thru the trouble proving the fossils aren't hoaxed, the dating results aren't fabricated, and genetically traced lines of descent aren't spun towards supporting evolution. I don't think so. So once again, if I said everyone can decide for themselves if the video is real or faked, would that be enough? Or are you now hereby censoring all evidence for the paranormal from the paranormal section?
     

Share This Page