Time for a Site Rules update?

I think it’s time we had an open an honest conversation about what is and is not allowed to be posted here, and then update the rules accordingly.

It’s quite clear that on certain topics, certain views may not be expressed, while some extremely dubious assertions are tolerated. It is acceptable, for example, for someone to claim that without vaccines, Taiwan’s COVID situation would be dramatically worse (this is not directed at any particular poster - the claim has been made repeatedly on forumosa and all over the interwebs). You only need an outline grasp of statistics, and the published data from the CECC in hand, to observe that this is demonstrably false … and indeed could not be true even if the vaccines were 100% effective, simply because (a) so few deaths are being recorded and (b) so many unfortunate side effects of vaccination are being recorded. This is not a matter of opinion. It’s a numerical fact. One might argue about the validity of the data. Or one might formulate opinions about the implications - eg., one might opine that even though the vaccines don’t appear to have any purpose we should all be vaccinated regardless, but I suggest one should be prepared either to be laughed at for that opinion, or to have an interesting justification. What one should not expect, surely, is to have any objection moderated away.

Now, I’m not objecting to people posting things that are false or dubious. I think it should be encouraged, precisely because it allows other members to (a) point out that the thing is false and (b) to explain why. And indeed that happens in other debates. I see a robust and informative discussion going on regarding nuclear power, for example. Both sides are bringing strong facts to the table. Even some light poo-flinging seems to escape moderation. But this is not so in the COVID threads, where false information is allowed to stand, and debatable opinions are not up for debate.

So the point is this: if there are limits on what may be discussed regarding COVID, then it needs to be clearly explained. If there are certain tenets which must not be challenged, let’s have an official list. It is presently impossible to determine beforehand what’s likely to get temped.

Discuss. Feel free to bring some poo to fling.

2 Likes

You’ll find an extremely wide range of information and debatable opinions in those threads, so I’m not sure what you could mean. Are you talking about any posts specifically?

Like what?

Yeah, but you can mute/ignore those posters. Maybe we need a badge for ‘has been muted by 50 regulars’, or something?

4 Likes

One particular post of mine was temped earlier today, without any reason that could be justified with reference to the present site rules. But that’s happened frequently and arbitrarily, not just to me but to others who are, shall we say, on a certain side of the fence. Hence my request for explicit clarification.

You rather missed my point. Personally, I’m perfectly happy to see people posting bullshit. It’s why I come here. It’d be boring if everyone had a set of blue tickmarks on their posts and restricted themselves to anodyne remarks. What is there left to discuss if nobody disagrees, or if people are afraid to register their disagreement? What I’m objecting to is a black-box policy of sidetracking replies to such posts. As per the title, I want the rules updated to offer clarity. Personally, I always thought the rules struck a pretty good balance, permitting almost everything except direct insults. Right now we appear to be operating under an additional set of unwritten rules, and I think they should not remain unwritten. But, I dunno, maybe others feel differently? Maybe members want more robust policing of what people post?

Yes, there was a reason that could be justified, and I sent you a message explaining that reason.

This isn’t going to go anywhere without specifics. I’d suggest collecting specific examples if you feel something is amiss.

3 Likes

I think i got yours, i think you missed mine

Anyways, I’m satisfied that the current system is fine. Do you have any specific articulation of what would satisy you?

2 Likes

You sent me a non-reason. My post contained an extremely mild dig at the original poster, backed up by some solid facts. I’ve seen people post much more insulting responses, in other contexts, without even making any attempt at justifying themselves, and had those posts left alone. I’m left to conclude then that either (a) I personally am subject to a different set of rules or (b) certain opinions are being removed for spurious reasons. I’d like to know which it is.

I’d either:

  • Like the existing site rules to be applied consistently or
  • Have the unwritten rules written out clearly for all to see.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with the site rules as they are currently written.

1 Like

Maybe they weren’t flagged and went under the radar, maybe there are more than three possibilities let alone the two that you see

2 Likes

According to you it was mild. Not according to me. Stick to the facts and leave out the personal comments that you have repeatedly insisted on adding to them, as you have been repeatedly advised, and that would have eliminated that issue.

We’ve been over this elsewhere. It’s clear that you don’t get it, but I have made it clear. It’s become obvious to me that there’s not a point to this kind of discussion with you, but you’re welcome to bring up specific examples in the future. Closing this

1 Like

The thread was intended as a general discussion. I was hoping for input from other users, not just you personally or the moderators in general.

If you actually want specific examples, then I’ve already flagged @Marco’s goading following my comment about vaccine-mediated immune disruption. This effect has been well-documented in multiple places (most notably in Scotland, where it was getting so embarrassing that PHS stopped publishing the numbers). And yet you not only decided to remove it from the conversation, you’ve (apparently) decided to ignore Marco taking the piss even after I’ve reported him as instructed. Not only is he breaking the rules:

If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.

Please avoid:

Knee-jerk contradiction.

If you disagree with someone, please stick to the message rather than mock the messenger. For example, if someone posts factually incorrect information, it is appropriate to say, “your facts are wrong,” but it is inappropriate to say, “you are a liar.”

You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person “deserved it”, or because you think someone is being disruptive. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk.

The general tone of his response can’t be construed as anything other than personal remarks that add nothing to the conversation. I’ve been banned for less.

In a similar vein, @afterspivak deliberately misconstrued a remark from two other posters about COVID deaths, while my own remark - pointing out that his conclusion from quoted statistics were bizarre - was instantly temped.

As I said before: I would like to see the rules either applied with equanimity, or a clear explanation of why my remarks are particularly offensive.

2 Likes

Nobody called you a liar.

I called that statement a lie. A pretty big one too.

Well done. I’m sure that’s a very effective workaround. I’ll remember that one for future use.

I made several statements there. Which one is a lie?

The…part that I…quoted…?

Sigh. Here’s a spare dereference operator for you: *

Now, what in the original post was a lie?

Did you read the post?

The part that I quoted is the lie.

All you quoted was “Nothing in that post is untrue”.

Exactly. That’s what I think is the lie, because we’ve already debunked that in another thread. It is absolutely untrue that vaccines, a product by definition designed improve a person’s immune response to a disease, is somehow weakening our immune systems.

So therefore, the content of your post is untrue.

This really isn’t the place for this argument and I think we need to take it elsewhere. Your logic here seems to be that the drug says “vaccine” on the bottle, therefore it cannot harm you in any way - and if the science shows that it does cause harm then there must be something wrong with the science, because semantics. I’m not sure where to even start with that.

1 Like