Rules discussion, specific to my disagreement with a mod

[beskeptical]

I am going to try one last time to defend myself on this board. Both of my last 2 posts were about communicating science and not about religion or politics. Yet both threads were locked and I was temporarily suspended by a moderator whose interpretation there were board rule infractions in those posts was simply wrong.

I would like someone to tell me where in these rules it forbids a single reference to a political figure that is relevant to a non-political discussion about communication.

12. Politics & Religion

Due to the contentious nature of these subjects, forum participants are strongly advised to avoid discussing religious and political issues. Please don't begin or contribute to a topic that's merely going to incite or fuel a flame war.

However, the following exceptions apply:

A) Political impact upon space programs, exploration, and science.

B) Focused, polite discussion of concepts such as creationism and "intelligent design" which bear direct relevance to astronomy and science, for the purposes of conversing about and addressing misconceptions.

C) Focused, polite discussion of the difference between astronomy (including cosmology) and religion

Partisan political debate is unwelcome and should be undertaken elsewhere. The same applies to debates purely religious in nature. Likewise, proselytizing will not be allowed. In short, you are allowed to discuss politics and religion within a very limited scope where they affect space and space exploration, astronomy, and science. Nothing more. If you really really need to talk about these topics with someone, take it to email or to another bulletin board.

Tell me where in my last two posts I invited a political or religious debate? Tell me just how in my last two posts the discussion about communication and about the secondary messages certain word choices convey, that either can be construed as violating the above rules.

If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. We will review the case and take action as needed.

I did PM the moderator who had locked the first thread in question but no discussion was allowed. The moderator refused to address the issue and chose to deny me the ability to continue the topic when I offered to remove the single reference to the political figure, (who I referred to, BTW, as a reference for his style of purposeful word choices, something completely separate from his political views and specific to the thread topic.)

I was then essentially temporarily banned for protesting (in my opinion) because I again posted on the same communication topic. With the second post I used Michael Shermer's paper on word choices made by the religious community as an example of the same point I was making. There was no more about religion in that post than hundreds of posts on ID, on the wedge strategy, and in my previous thread, "ID, We are asking the wrong question".

Try a search for "wedge strategy" and tell me religion and politics both aren't discussed at length. The entire thread, "ID, we are asking the wrong question", which was a closely related topic, didn't raise an eyebrow.

I challenge anyone to look at my couple thousand posts on this board and find I have some pattern of discussing politics. Outside of the board, yes, but I have always respected the rules here. I have had a few conflicts with people here and there. Not many people can say in a couple thousand exchanges they haven't had some conflict with a few people. I am passionate about my beliefs. But I have been posting here long enough that I should have earned enough trust a single reference to a political figure wouldn't be construed as a political discussion.


Well, I am posting on the same topic a third time. I don't care if I get banned. I wasn't treated fairly before and have declined to return since then anyway. If I had broken any rules this would be a non-issue. It happens...

But having a moderator warn me for merely citing a politician as a source and then suspend me for standing up for principle was and still is unacceptable.

I wasn't going to take any further steps until a thread at the JREF forum was started with an opening post which was so clearly what my earlier posts had been about, I am choosing to present this topic a third time from a third perspective and show it is analogous to the same topic of both of my last two posts and it was wrong to take a minor reference in those posts as some major infraction of this board's rules. It contains a link to the previous thread with the political reference. I had posted the same thread on 3 boards and the link is to the JREF board not here. The reference to the previous thread is pertinent to the discussion.

Were this not a critical topic to all of us trying to address the issues of communicating science to a world of people who don't easily get the message, I would have brushed the temporary ban off and moved on. But it is a critical issue. If I cannot post about communication, about marketing techniques, about propaganda as it applies to communicating non-science and the need to recognize it when we see it, or if I have to worry eveytime this subject is discussed that the thread will be locked or I cannot speak freely then it is a waste of time to participate on this board.

If it cannot be clearly explained to me how my 2 posts violated the board rules, and how those two posts had so much religion or politics in them they stand out above the hundreds of other posts which come much closer to violating the rules but were not addressed with warnings and locked, then it's my opinion an apology is in order. Not that I expect one. In fact, what I expect is to be chastised for daring to challenge the moderator, instead of any recognition that principles are sometimes worth standing up for.

[Tinaa]

12. Politics & Religion

Due to the contentious nature of these subjects, forum participants are strongly advised to avoid discussing religious and political issues. Please don't begin or contribute to a topic that's merely going to incite or fuel a flame war.

my bold

The title you gave your topics were very likely to start a flame war. I had no idea what topic you were peddling according to the titles. You claim you were discussioning miscommunication or the value of good communication, yet the topic was not apparent, to me, in your OP. Perhaps I am just very dense and unable to comprehend the topic to which you were referring in your posts.

As per the rules, did you contact another moderator or admin?

[Arneb]

I don't know if the larger community of board members is invited into the discussion here, but if we are, reinstating the threads for a critical look would be highly useful.

Nothing, but nothing I've read from beskeptical in the 14 months I've been frequenting this board gave me reason to think of beskeptical as someone likely to incite a flame war. So without having seen the threads in question, Tinaa's reaction to the OP seems both brusque and nitpicky: To write someone was "peddling" a topic seems highly derogative to me as a non-native speaker; to write "Perhaps I am just very dense and unable to comprehend the topic..." stakes the moderator's reputation against that of the OP (like "if we admit the moderator made a mistake locking the thread we also admit the moderator is 'very dense', so we can't possibly admit it without loosing face" - moderation, as coming from Latin "moderare" is something entirely different); finally, the insistence on protocol ("As per the rules, did you contact another moderator or admin?") is rather against a spirit of reconciliation and moderation. It's lawyer-tactics instead. "So before we begin to talk about the question if anyone treated you unfairly, let's see if you didn't make some procedural mistake first."

The first (and AFAIK, still valid) rulof this board was "be nice". Beskeptical is entirely within this rule in making an elaborate, polite and succint case that some recent moderator action against him was unfair.

I think an answer in similar style would be in order.

[ToSeek]

beskeptical's controversial posts can be found at

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42661

and

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=43032

I think that accusing Karl Rove of lies and "Newspeak" in the first thread is outside the bounds of legitimate discussion here and merited a warning. I don't see any problems with the second thread, nor with the new one.

[Arneb]

Thanks a lot for the links, ToSeek. I didn't bother searching for the threads - The OP did not contain a link there and that is why I thought they had been not only locked but deleted.

I find myself agreeing with beskeptical, by and large. The first thread title merited change (pushing each other's buttons was a very apt description by antoniseb), but the thread subject is, I think, extremely valuable and relevant to this board. Personally, I would love to see it reopened. I have done some professional work on "alternative" medicine myself (as an expert witness in civil cases, so this is something I could even contribute to.

Beskepticals quickly-locked complaint thread seems entirely justified to me (putting procedural issues aside). Especially, he is right in stating that there is no more politics and religion in the subject than is necessary for the, what was it? - "Focused, polite discussion of concepts [...] which bear direct relevance to astronomy and science, for the purposes of conversing about and addressing misconceptions" (12 B).

[pghnative]

I think it is telling that Beskeptical's first thread did not spiral into a flame war. Instead, several posters joined in for what looked like an interesting discussion. I would have liked to see the thread remain open.

Perhaps a good rule of thumb is that if referencing a politician or administration is important to ones post, then all attempts should be made to reference two politicians, one from each side. I trust beskeptical could think of some one on the left with similar qualities to K. Rove.

And if one finds that they cannot find two references (because only one side is honest/dishonest or good communicator/bad communicator or good spinmeister/bad spinmeister) then that is evidence of bias on ones part and the references should be removed.

[beskeptical]

12. Politics & Religion

Due to the contentious nature of these subjects, forum participants are strongly advised to avoid discussing religious and political issues. Please don't begin or contribute to a topic that's merely going to incite or fuel a flame war.

my bold

The title you gave your topics were very likely to start a flame war. I had no idea what topic you were peddling according to the titles. You claim you were discussioning miscommunication or the value of good communication, yet the topic was not apparent, to me, in your OP. Perhaps I am just very dense and unable to comprehend the topic to which you were referring in your posts.

As per the rules, did you contact another moderator or admin?

Yes and Yes as to the last question. I already mentioned the exchange with the mod in question. And I PM'd Phil who never replied.

If it was only the title, then my request to restart the thread without Rove in the title or in the thread should have been no big deal. And, I posted the same thread and same title on two other boards and not one mention of politics or the title followed in the discussion. AND, the second thread had no such inflammatory title but was 'knee jerk' locked anyway.

And why should the title have been inflammatory? Are people unable to read a thread and find out the reference was not inflammatory? Did the thread sound like I intended the title to be inflammatory? Or wouldn't a, "hey that might bother someone can you take it out?", been a reasonable response? Remember, I didn't put it there to be inflammatory. I have a long history on this board and it isn't one of posting political or religious discussion outside of the rules. The effect of locking the thread and warning me not to post on a subject I thought was very important, left me two choices. Post anyway or be unfairly blocked from opening a thread because someone jumped to an incorrect conclusion.

[beskeptical]

I don't know if the larger community of board members is invited into the discussion here, but if we are, reinstating the threads for a critical look would be highly useful.

Nothing, but nothing I've read from beskeptical in the 14 months I've been frequenting this board gave me reason to think of beskeptical as someone likely to incite a flame war. So without having seen the threads in question, Tinaa's reaction to the OP seems both brusque and nitpicky: To write someone was "peddling" a topic seems highly derogative to me as a non-native speaker; to write "Perhaps I am just very dense and unable to comprehend the topic..." stakes the moderator's reputation against that of the OP (like "if we admit the moderator made a mistake locking the thread we also admit the moderator is 'very dense', so we can't possibly admit it without loosing face" - moderation, as coming from Latin "moderare" is something entirely different); finally, the insistence on protocol ("As per the rules, did you contact another moderator or admin?") is rather against a spirit of reconciliation and moderation. It's lawyer-tactics instead. "So before we begin to talk about the question if anyone treated you unfairly, let's see if you didn't make some procedural mistake first."

The first (and AFAIK, still valid) rulof this board was "be nice". Beskeptical is entirely within this rule in making an elaborate, polite and succint case that some recent moderator action against him was unfair.

I think an answer in similar style would be in order.

Thankyou, Arneb. The posts are still be there but the threads locked.

Marketing, lessons from Shermer

Communicating science, we can learn from Carl Rove

BTW, He is a she.

edited to add: Posted before reading ToSeek's post.

[beskeptical]

beskeptical's controversial posts can be found at

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42661

and

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=43032

I think that accusing Karl Rove of lies and "Newspeak" in the first thread is outside the bounds of legitimate discussion here and merited a warning. I don't see any problems with the second thread, nor with the new one.

The exact quote was, "Communicating science, we can learn from Karl Rove, except I am not advocating by any means that we adopt lies and "Newspeak" terminology. (War is not peace and lies eventually backfire.)"

Outside the bounds by some people's opinion is fine with me. I asked the mod if I could re-start the thread and leave this out but was refused without any discussion.

I had no intention of making a discussion of political propaganda and frankly, I don't think it is any secret nor in question that the "except...." clause in that sentence is true. "War is Peace" is a direct quote from Orwell's 1984 and the fact lies backfire is my opinion. So when I wrote it, I was speaking matter of factly. The fact it was outside of the rules in the opinion of one or more moderators was perfectly acceptable to me. Claiming the post itself was at issue rather than the title and reference in the first sentence was not acceptable.

[beskeptical]

Delete this post if you want but, here are references as to why I just assumed the sentence in question was no more than common knowledge.

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace";
George W. Bush; From a speech at the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development in Wash. DC, 6/18/02.

Google search: karl rove propaganda techniques

for example

The last election almost certainly turned on the question of whose leadership could best “keep America safe.” George W. Bush, thanks to Karl Rove, absolutely rolled John Kerry on this question. Kerry, the decorated vet, was successfully depicted as a French-loving, wind-surfing “liberal flip-flopper.” And then we all heard, ad nauseum, that he “betrayed his comrades” in Vietnam by “throwing away his medals” at some hippie protest or other.

The context of using Rove in the title was exactly as I said, he is known for his technique of using specific catch phrases, not just making a point. This technique gets results and is not easily overcome. And you can do it with the truth as well as with lies.

My reference in the offending sentence shouldn't have been a secret, or even controversial as the Bush quote and the example of a false information campaign in the paragraph illustrate.

Had I gone on to discuss the politics, it would be my bad. The way I titled and opened the post, in my mind, was not intended to be political. It might be seen as careless by some, it didn't really dawn on me it was going to be an issue. But I wasn't given the benefit of the doubt.

[beskeptical]

I think it is telling that Beskeptical's first thread did not spiral into a flame war. Instead, several posters joined in for what looked like an interesting discussion. I would have liked to see the thread remain open.

Perhaps a good rule of thumb is that if referencing a politician or administration is important to ones post, then all attempts should be made to reference two politicians, one from each side. I trust beskeptical could think of some one on the left with similar qualities to K. Rove.

And if one finds that they cannot find two references (because only one side is honest/dishonest or good communicator/bad communicator or good spinmeister/bad spinmeister) then that is evidence of bias on ones part and the references should be removed.

Thank you as well, pg. There are plenty of examples on both sides of the isle. Rove and his use of "talking points" happen to be in the spotlight at the moment.

[beskeptical]

I was going to ask the other party's permission to post this PM but then I realized, I'm the one who wrote it. I won't post the response which I didn't save anyway. The mod is welcome to post it. It said not to re-open the topic and I do not deny simply ignoring the warning. But the topic, when reopened, had the offending material removed and replaced with another reference. It also had my protest noted because as you can see, I have strong feelings about this incident.


Here is what I wrote to the mod when the first thread was locked:

I'd like to restart this thread leaving out the references to Rove or politics. I understand your issue but disagree that anyone on that thread was sidetracked into a political discussion by my reference. But no matter, I respect the board rules.

Just to set the record straight, I used the reference of Karl Rove because he's famous for this particular issue, single word or simple sentence talking points. I didn't use the name with any intention of discussing politics, nor did I think the thread had gotten into a political discussion. Sarong merely asked for a clarification of the connection.

The subject can be discussed without political references so it's not a big deal to revise the thread. I would point out to you in my defense, however, that I posted this same topic at JREF and The Skeptic Friends Network. Neither of those forums prevent political discussion yet on neither of the threads has politics been mentioned.

I am concerned about the misinformation which is being so well executed by the Republican Party and so poorly executed by the Democratic Party, which is why the Rove example came to mind. But the idea that sparked the thread had nothing to do with politics, only with the importance of word choices. Like the issue I brought up in the ID thread, we are not looking at the science of communication and persuasion when we are debating these issues and trying to move people away from junk science and other fantasy thinking.

I think it's pretty clear that was the direction of the thread. And it is a bit frustrating to have to censor one's thoughts less a reference to something political creep in and bother someone despite the fact no political discussion was occurring.

On the Greenpeace thread*, my comments originally concerned the same thing, how we present arguments and the message we wish to get across. Papag didn't believe that was my intent. Yes, I could have ignored him. But I am passionate about changing how we communicate so I didn't.

Passionate may not mean I'm good at communicating myself. Obviously you've misunderstood my posts and been distracted from the intent by my leaving an opening for getting sidetracked. I only recently began thinking about avoiding openings for people to focus misdirection from the main point. It is very common though and well worth paying attention to.

So, may I restart the thread, or reopen it with a moderator editing the title and I'll delete any references to Rove? And if I restart it, would you prefer I wait a particular period of time?


*The reference to the GreenPeace thread was a recent thread the mod locked (appropriately so), when I and another member got testy with each other. The link is to the last page with the most heated stuff. I'm not perfect, but I have always tried to follow the rules here.

[Tinaa]

I suppose part of the miscommunication is that members do not see the Reported Posts threads in the admin section. Most people do not complain publicly about a thread that seems against the rules. They report them to us instead. Members do not see much of the behind the scenes communication between mods and members.

Mods try to communicate privately with members that break the rules first before publicly posting warnings. As beskeptical said, she has be in a few conflicts with people because, IMO, she seems to be so passionate about some topics. Passion can be good except not necessarily on a science board.

The outcomes of a couple of those conflicts were contested by several members when others were suspended and beskeptical wasn't. Again, y'all do not see the reported posts.

I stand by my statements that the title or lead-in of her posts were inflammatory. Why could she not have started the post without references to politics or religion? IMO, the titles were just hooks to get a reader's attention. The threads were about alternative medicine.

We have members from all over the world. Some are religious, some are not. Some like politics, some don't. beskeptical's first topic could very likely set off our republican members. (We already had a reported post about her political posts in this thread.) Religious people don't like being told their beliefs aren't valid because they have fallen for a sales technique - to paraphrase.

[Arneb]

It's good to see this case elaborated in a friendly and, yes, nice way. After what I've read here, I think it would be O. K. to restart the original thread without the reference to Karl Rove - mentioning him as a point in case for anything is probably "pushing people's buttons" (it certainly pushes mine , but never mind), so a warning and a modification of the references to him would probably do. I, for one, would certainly like to proceed with the thread, which concerns one of the principal failures of modern science with those less well informed.

By the way, as one of those whose buttons are certainly pushed when he reads about Karl Rove - I would strongly suggest that using Rove as a role model for "marvellously effective communicator" is ill advised. We can find people who make a positive impression regardless of politcal/religious coulour, cant't we?

Can we go on from here?

BTW, He is a she.

So I tried to avoid the personal pronoun throughout the entire post and failed in the last line, primordial prejudice finally showing through. Argh. Since there is no [blushing and making an apologizing gesture] emoticon, I'll just say: oh, sorry, beskeptical. Entirely unjustified prejudice.

[hhEb09'1]

Entirely unjustified prejudice.

An old mnemonic device: Beskeptigal

[beskeptical]

...
I stand by my statements that the title or lead-in of her posts were inflammatory. Why could she not have started the post without references to politics or religion? IMO, the titles were just hooks to get a reader's attention. The threads were about alternative medicine.

You see no dispute of that from me, only that I didn't do it with the implied intent. You haven't commented on why it went from there to not being able to remove the offending material and keep the thread or why the second thread which led to the banning was offensive.

beskeptical's first topic could very likely set off our republican members. (We already had a reported post about her political posts in this thread.)

I said you could delete that post if you want to. Honestly, if that offended someone, they have a problem. It's a link to a Google search result and a public quote with the very LIMITED SPECIFIC REASON of showing my thread title and 1st line were innocent comments.

...We have members from all over the world. Some are religious, some are not. Some like politics, some don't..[snip].. Religious people don't like being told their beliefs aren't valid because they have fallen for a sales technique - to paraphrase.

Are you trying to say no one should dare claim evolution is a fact lest it offend someone? Huh? Or we shouldn't talk about why and how people believe weird things with the goal of getting them to not believe weird things because we might offend them? You can't be serious.

[beskeptical]

It's good to see this case elaborated in a friendly and, yes, nice way. After what I've read here, I think it would be O. K. to restart the original thread without the reference to Karl Rove - mentioning him as a point in case for anything is probably "pushing people's buttons" (it certainly pushes mine , but never mind), so a warning and a modification of the references to him would probably do. I, for one, would certainly like to proceed with the thread, which concerns one of the principal failures of modern science with those less well informed.

No need to restart either of the two locked threads since the new one is on the same topic.

By the way, as one of those whose buttons are certainly pushed when he reads about Karl Rove - I would strongly suggest that using Rove as a role model for "marvellously effective communicator" is ill advised. We can find people who make a positive impression regardless of politcal/religious coulour, cant't we?

No need to use any role model. But there may be times when an example is called for. If someone wants to PM a mod claiming an unattributed example offends them because they think it is secretly intended to be attributed to someone, I would hope the mods can tell people to get a thicker skin once in a while.

I would like to know that out of 4,900 posts and 4 years as a member I have established enough trust that someone could look at an accidental crossed line with a bit of reason and common sense.

So I tried to avoid the personal pronoun throughout the entire post and failed in the last line, primordial prejudice finally showing through. Argh. Since there is no [blushing and making an apologizing gesture] emoticon, I'll just say: oh, sorry, beskeptical. Entirely unjustified prejudice.

No worry, Mate on the he/she thing. It really doesn't bother me.

Can we go on from here?

I thought so until the last post from tinaa. If I have to be afraid of offending someone because I dared to challenge their beliefs, religious or otherwise then I'm out of here. Board rules are one thing. I have never complained about the no religion or politics rules. But one's beliefs are not valid if they are the mere result of being fooled by a sales technique. Beliefs are valid when the are supported by evidence. And to think I could discuss the science of evolution but not the science of communication is simply unacceptable. The whole purpose of the skeptical community is to spread critical thinking skills.

I have never been one to be less than frank just so I don't offend someone. Polite, yes, but superficially phony, no. So I await a bit more from tinaa explaining what she means so we go on from here with a clear understanding. I'm getting the distinct impression from those comments there are some people who don't like me because I do challenge their beliefs and I don't mince words about it. Unless there is something specific like the Karl Rove reference, then it's their problem not mine. If it's something specific, I am always happy to apologize or explain if I was misunderstood or whatever it takes.

I am generally a nice person and I am certainly polite. But I'm not going to pretend people who believe in myths have valid beliefs so I don't offend them. Why would any of us do that?

[beskeptical]

An old mnemonic device: Beskeptigal

Boy, that's an old post you dredged up. Hey Grapes, it gave you away. I need to pay more attention. I didn't notice you have a new name again.

Actually, I'd like to change to beskeptigal or just skeptigal if someone else doesn't have that name but I can't do it without starting over. I know, it's silly but one does occasionally note a post number indicates a regular. I should have done it 4 years ago then it wouldn't be an issue now.

I'm skeptigirl on a couple other boards. I can't decide if I like skeptigirl or skeptigal better. Skeptigal sounds better but I always thought of the word gal as old fashioned.

But I digress....

[hhEb09'1]

Hey Grapes, it gave you away.

It's no secret really You just need to hang around more!

I like Beskeptigal, and "gal" is a scientific term too, metric. (O g*ez, I just noticed that the info at that link is not only wrong, it contradicts itself. One gal = 1 cm/s²). It's a measure of acceleration, so it has nothing to do with how fast you are, just how quickly you can get going.

[antoniseb]

I would hope the mods can tell people to get a thicker skin once in a while.

Good advice, so long as they can do it without getting thicker heads.

[ToSeek]

Are you trying to say no one should dare claim evolution is a fact lest it offend someone? Huh? Or we shouldn't talk about why and how people believe weird things with the goal of getting them to not believe weird things because we might offend them? You can't be serious.

That is not what she is saying at all, and I find it difficult to believe that your misunderstanding could be innocent.

Evolution is a legitimate subject here because it's a scientific topic. If someone finds it offensive, too bad for them. However, political and religious subjects are not permitted here unless they are directly related to science. You can post a great many political facts here, and they could all be completely true, from Karl Rove's honesty to Bill Clinton's sex life (to provide an example from each side of the fence). But unless they're directly relevant to a scientific issue, they violate the rules of this forum. Do it too many times, and you would no longer be allowed to post here, even if every single post was scrupulously truthful. Likewise for any number of facts related to religion.

Meanwhile, in my opinion, your first attempt at the subject at issue violated the "no politics" rule in an entirely avoidable way, and your second attempt, in the opinion of several moderators, violated the "no religion" rule. I also find that your post #10, above, needlessly violates the "no politics" rule, though evidently I'm in the minority amongst the moderators as none of the others have called you on it.

For now, I would like to make it clear that truth is not a defense against Rule #12, the one titled "Politics & Religion". Since right now you seem to think that it is, I would suggest that you modify your thinking accordingly.

[beskeptical]

That is not what she is saying at all, and I find it difficult to believe that your misunderstanding could be innocent.

Evolution is a legitimate subject here because it's a scientific topic. If someone finds it offensive, too bad for them. However, political and religious subjects are not permitted here unless they are directly related to science. You can post a great many political facts here, and they could all be completely true, from Karl Rove's honesty to Bill Clinton's sex life (to provide an example from each side of the fence). But unless they're directly relevant to a scientific issue, they violate the rules of this forum. Do it too many times, and you would no longer be allowed to post here, even if every single post was scrupulously truthful. Likewise for any number of facts related to religion.

Meanwhile, in my opinion, your first attempt at the subject at issue violated the "no politics" rule in an entirely avoidable way, and your second attempt, in the opinion of several moderators, violated the "no religion" rule. I also find that your post #10, above, needlessly violates the "no politics" rule, though evidently I'm in the minority amongst the moderators as none of the others have called you on it.

For now, I would like to make it clear that truth is not a defense against Rule #12, the one titled "Politics & Religion". Since right now you seem to think that it is, I would suggest that you modify your thinking accordingly.

This is unbelievable, ToSeek. I'm going to ignore the misplaced accusatory tone of this and try to correct your misunderstandings of what has been said here.

This is the post locked for supposedly violating board rules on religious content in posts.

This is what the board rules say about religion:

However, the following exceptions apply:...

Partisan political debate is unwelcome and should be undertaken elsewhere. The same applies to debates purely religious in nature. Likewise, proselytizing will not be allowed. In short, you are allowed to discuss politics and religion within a very limited scope where they affect space and space exploration, astronomy, and science. Nothing more. If you really really need to talk about these topics with someone, take it to email or to another bulletin board.

This is what I wrote about the intent of including Shermer's quote with a religious reference in the thread:

"The point here is NOT RELIGION. I hate to even mention it because once again it detracts from the point I am making. The point is the competition for science is marketing their message. And even if they weren't marketing an anti-science message, the fact we are not marketing the science message is making us less effective communicators overall."

If anyone took the time to look at the context of Shermer's remarks, which were easily linked to, they would have found this quote from Skepchick, and Donna Druchuna's interview with Shermer:

Last month, when we started discussing Why People Believe Weird Things, I sent a few questions to Michael Shermer via email. In this interview, he explains why these seemingly trivial issues are important, gives some insights into his thoughts about science and religion, and talks about how we can make skepticism fun and fulfilling.

Tell me how I should have known I wasn't keeping to the rule of limited scope with that post?

Contrary to all the false assumptions being made around here, the reason I even used the Shermer example was because I thought if one of the leading skeptics was pointing out what I was trying to point out, that we need more than facts to educate people about science, it would support the case I was making. We need to use the science of communication more effectively than we currently are. And, many of the people disseminating the anti-science messages are using the science of communication very effectively. That is why it is relevant to mention in this case, within that limited scope.


What tinaa wrote, "Religious people don't like being told their beliefs aren't valid because they have fallen for a sales technique - to paraphrase", can only be referring to the quote from Michael Shermer about the growth of mass marketing of religion in the US. (Go to the post to read it because heaven forbid I should post it again.)

There is a significant amount of misinformation being promoted by the most sophisticated marketing techniques. It happens that in both the political and religious arenas there is a lot of bad science included in the promoted misinformation.

Tell me how should I interpret what tinaa said given the above context? I interpreted it mean I shouldn't be able to mention the anti-science crowd is marketing their message. That sure sounds to me like I can't discuss a legitimate issue affecting science because it could be interpreted as applying to more than just the anti-science aspects of religion.

I certainly didn't say being factual had anything to do with allowing religious or political statements. And I said you could delete post 10 if you wanted. It was just an explanation of what my thought processes were or weren't when I made the casual reference in my first post.


Let me sum this up. I started three threads about the message a name sends. I put a reference in the first one I really didn't think was a big deal. Others disagreed. I was more than happy to take it out. Sorry, my bad. It most certainly wasn't an intentional attempt to sneak a political statement into a post. (Talk about conspiracy theorists.)

An example used in the second thread, same topic supposedly violated a board rule by being about religion but not affecting science. It's pretty darn clear it does affect science. How can you discuss educating people about science and not consider techniques used to counter your message relevant? It was just a fight fire with fire reference and I made a point that was specifically what it was.

The idea I have broken rules purposefully, posted religious and political content that was impossible anyone could have mistaken as within that limited scope of affecting science, let alone the comments actually be within the scope, is quite unfair. The reality is the anti-science people and messages do not exist in a vacuum. I have always respected and still respect the board rules. I have introduced a new concept, how messages are communicated, and in doing so have opened another area on the board where religion and politics brush up against each other.

I can't see that what I have posted crosses any further over the line than is crossed when Global Warming and Creation/ID are the subjects. Surely groups like the Discovery Institute and their promotion of ID and some politics surrounding global warming and even the decision to put a book on the Biblical flood at the visitor center at the Grand Canyon have been at least mentioned on this board? Is a claim being made there has never been discussion about the anti-science sentiment being greater on one side of the political isle than the other?

Regardless, I have no issue with the decision of whether a line was crossed being up to the moderators. But at the same time, I expect to be given the benefit of the doubt that what I post was intended to be within the rules. I shouldn't be accused of offending a political group or belittling religion believers because I addressed techniques used to communicate anti-science and I referred to an individual or group that happens to be using the communication techniques more effectively than scientists are.


And still there isn't one comment here defending why my post to the mod saying sorry, I'll take the offensive comments out, it wasn't intentional, wasn't enough to have settled this whole affair at the beginning.

[antoniseb]

...I'm going to ignore the misplaced accusatory tone of this and try to correct your misunderstandings of what has been said here...

I expect to be given the benefit of the doubt that what I post was intended to be within the rules.

How can moderators be expected to know your intent? In this case you openly admit that you ignored a warning, and pressed ahead, whether out of ideological obligation or spite. Looking at the log of communications to and between the moderators and admins at the time, ToSeek's accusatory tone seems well placed.

[Arneb]

And still there isn't one comment here defending why my post to the mod saying sorry, I'll take the offensive comments out, it wasn't intentional, wasn't enough to have settled this whole affair at the beginning.

This is what I am not getting either. Why wasn't the affair finished with that? beskeptical explained herself quite sufficiently, didn't she?

And may I also stress that beskeptical did not simply "ignore a warning and press ahead". The OP and her anwer to Tinaa stated clearly that she tried to settle the matter via PM to Phil and a moderator and was ignored in one case and flatly denied further discussion in the other. Not her fault, if anyone's, is it?

I cannot see this behaviour as guided by malicious intent, although it involved breaking a rule. After all, she had tried to make herself clear in PMs. Neither can I see how knowing the intermoderator traffic about these posts would change my view.

As I feared from the style and tone in Tinaa's first reply, this discussion is taking a downward turn: The moderators start to become party in this issue, and this is not a good prerequisite for moderation.

[Roy Batty]

I have to say, I tend to agree with all of Arneb's points above

[ToSeek]

The moderators start to become party in this issue, and this is not a good prerequisite for moderation.

Most of us moderators are inclined to think that this is a matter for Phil and Fraser to resolve (which is why there hasn't been all that much discussion here from our side and certainly no attempt at a resolution). Unfortunately, both of them are off at DragonCon this weekend and not in much of a position to deal with the issue.

[beskeptical]

How can moderators be expected to know your intent? In this case you openly admit that you ignored a warning, and pressed ahead, whether out of ideological obligation or spite. Looking at the log of communications to and between the moderators and admins at the time, ToSeek's accusatory tone seems well placed.

4,912 posts and forum membership since 2002 coupled with the fact the post was about the meaning of special legitimacy implied in the name 'alternative' and the reference to Rove was just that, a brief reference.

I pressed ahead with the topic that had nothing to do with politics because you ignored that fact and essentially censored a legitimate topic.

And ToSeeks accusation was, "That is not what she is saying at all, and I find it difficult to believe that your misunderstanding could be innocent", which I don't even know what he meant, let alone what he thought I pretended to not understand about tinaa's post. If I am anything here, it is frank. The accusation was not well placed.

[beskeptical]

I can't tell you how nice it is that some people are speaking up they understand what it is I have been saying.

As for this being an issue for Phil or Fraser, not only is that an excellent idea, I was thinking after my post last night that it might be time to elaborate on those rules about when science and politics in particular, but religion as well especially given the political activism of Creationist and ID proponents, do overlap enough to be appropriate topics for this board. There are more groups and people than ever pushing anti-science agendas on the public. Global warming and intelligent design have been the targets but the integrity of science and the scientific process has been one of the casualties when valid scientific studies are pitted against the misinformation campaigns in the process.

[Nereid]

[snip]

As for this being an issue for Phil or Fraser, not only is that an excellent idea, I was thinking after my post last night that it might be time to elaborate on those rules about when science and politics in particular, but religion as well especially given the political activism of Creationist and ID proponents, do overlap enough to be appropriate topics for this board. There are more groups and people than ever pushing anti-science agendas on the public. Global warming and intelligent design have been the targets but the integrity of science and the scientific process has been one of the casualties when valid scientific studies are pitted against the misinformation campaigns in the process.

[Nereid wearing ordinary BAUT member hat, not moderator one]

Some personal observations:

Discussions of the kind beskeptical kicked off are, IMHO, highly problematical, as long as we have the BAUT rules that are in place today.

But first, my own (poor) understanding of what beskeptical wants to discuss: how to communicate astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, and space science (more) effectively? In particular, what can one learn from the way in which various players, active in US society, have communicated their ideas (which include, it is alleged, various things anti-science, anti-scientists, and anti-scientific (the method))?

I feel this is a worthy topic.

However, I am doubtful - is BAUT an appropriate forum for discussion of such a topic?

Second, even it is an appropriate forum, what limitations would there be on such discussions, in the general sense, due to BAUT's rules?

For example, the role of incitement (is there such a word?), of dog whistles, of the 'Madonna view of PR' (publicity is not bad, publicity cannot be bad), of language (profane, 'earthy', exulted, or otherwise), and much more - all would be crimped by BAUT rules (the discussion would, of necessity, have to avoid all words that would violate rule #3, for example; and how could you talk about the role of incitement wrt efficiency of conveying messages without any examples, which you couldn't possibly introduce without falling foul of BAUT rules?).

Given such limitations, how satisfactory could any discussion of the beskeptical kind, here in BAUT, be?

So, if indeed any such discussions would be unsatisfactory, why try to have them, here, in BAUT, in the first place?

And so it would be wrt politics and religion - no matter how well-worded the introduction to a discussion on message efficiency, as soon as it introduces politics or religion, as examples, it will quickly get derailed ... and the specific political and religious examples will become the topic.

[/Nereid wearing ordinary BAUT member hat, not moderator one]

[Arneb]

[adressing Nereid the BAUT member]
I think discussing about the way science is being portrayed and presents - "sells", if you will - itself in the general media is a topic this board should not only be suited but ideal for - remember, the two admins of this board have made public outreach their career, and they are making a marvellous job of it. This board is one of their roaring successes, and I think the topic is extremely relevant to most of us here.

Is it possible? - of course it is! First, there is rule 12B, which I cited above. We are (and as I wanted to make clear in this thread, beskepital was)
within the given limits of the rules to discuss pol&reg if and when this "is relevant for polite, focussed discussions of topics which bear direct relevance to astronomy and science, for the purposes of conversing about and addressing misconceptions".
Second, if the higly motivated, generally well behaved, generally knowledgable and always curious lot on this board isn't able to discuss this kind of subject in a civil way, then who is? We have seen so many members of this board stay calm and civil in the face of outrageous accusations and plain old nonsense (I wouldn't ever have JayUtah's or Nereid's patience in the CT/ATM discussions), that the circumstances seem very favourable indeed.
Third, seeing the rising tide of ant-scientism (in whichever cloak, be it religion or what have you) in the US and the, what do the Americans call it, "ROW", we have to do it, because, as Phil isn't ever tiring of saying, science is under attack. We have to get our act together.

Yes, Nereid, this discussion is possible, appropriate, and necesessary on this board, and if there is a place in cyberspace where it can also be satisfactory, it is right here. [/adressing Nereid the BAUT member]

[adressing Nereid the moderator] And if you ask me, how is this kind of discussion is "moderatable", I can only say two things: First, the "Be nice" rule has in the past always served its purpose very well, I think; so hold a thumb on the inflammatory parts (as beskeptical herself in this case would have been willing to accept); steer the discussion towards niceness; be nice (such as assuming good faith in someone who has repeatedly proven deserving of it);
and second, my own and other people's criticism of moderator action in this affair notwithstanding: You lot can do it. You've shown it more than once.[/adressing Nereid the moderator]

So am I sounding lofty and dramtaic? Aw, shucks