Perhaps split History category?

Where have we been?
BlueSpark
Poster
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:32 pm

Perhaps split History category?

Post by BlueSpark » Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:56 pm

Since the History category here is so dominated by neo-Nazi posts and Holocaust denier propaganda, perhaps it would be a good idea to give this subject its own category? How inviting is it to the casual or chance visitor to our fine little site to click on "History" and see this nonsense?

Perhaps such posts could be placed under the heading Crackpot Hate, Anti-semitism and Nazi Apologists?

Just a thought. What do you think?
Last edited by BlueSpark on Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Pedantica
Regular Poster
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:35 pm
Location: Precinct Fabulous

Post by Pedantica » Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:48 pm

Could we call the new category "Recycle Bin"?

BlueSpark
Poster
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:32 pm

Post by BlueSpark » Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:59 pm

I like it. :lol:

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9999
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Post by Pyrrho » Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 am

Doctor X wrote:Kicking this upstairs. . . .

--J.D.

That's no kind of title at all...

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9999
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Post by Pyrrho » Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:33 am

Doctor X wrote:You are mean!

--J.D.

Yes, and the Standard Error is fairly small, too. :P

User avatar
Chaos
Poster
Posts: 407
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:05 pm
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

Post by Chaos » Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:43 pm

Doctor X wrote:You have a skewed way of thinking. . . .

Nevertheless, my "vote" is for Denying History.

--J.D.


I´d have some less diplomatic titles I could suggest, but I think I´ll stay within the bounds of forum rules instead...

BlueSpark
Poster
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:32 pm

Post by BlueSpark » Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:58 pm

How about Kickin' It Upstairs With Goebbels :?:

User avatar
Don_Fernandez
Poster
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:37 pm
Location: Under the Milky Way

Post by Don_Fernandez » Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:50 pm

I'm all in favor of splitting. Calling it "Denying History" unfortunately would be criticized as biased by "David" and those that think like him.
I suggest just calling it Holocaust Revisionism
And then the forum description could be "for those history topics dealing with Denying History" ;)
"Such... is the respect paid to science that the most absurd opinions may become current, provided they are expressed in language, the sound of which recalls some well-known scientific phrase"
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)

Kiless
Regular Poster
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:28 pm

Post by Kiless » Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:14 am

Historical Analysis?

Debates About History?

Historical Theory?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Post by xouper » Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:09 am

Doctor X wrote:... perhaps a separate section on JFK Conspiracy would prove efficacious.

I'd also like to propose a separate forum subsection for people who like to use big words when a diminutive one will do.

User avatar
Wyvern
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:21 am
Location: A bollocks-free zone in SoCal

Post by Wyvern » Fri Jan 13, 2006 8:32 am

What's the name of that show?


Oh yea . . .


Bulls**t!
How do I know that you're really a skeptic?

Kiless
Regular Poster
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:28 pm

Post by Kiless » Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:11 pm

Doctor X wrote:
Kiless wrote:Historical Analysis?

Debates About History?

Historical Theory?


Presumes that actual theory, anaylsis, and debate will occur in the section.

--J.D.


Annals and Aspersions?

Theory and Tripe?

Antiquity and The Obloquious?

Historical Revisionism Pussywhipping?

eh, Wyvern put it best.

Kiless
Regular Poster
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:28 pm

Post by Kiless » Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:15 pm

xouper wrote:
Doctor X wrote:... perhaps a separate section on JFK Conspiracy would prove efficacious.

I'd also like to propose a separate forum subsection for people who like to use big words when a diminutive one will do.


Well, I offer my most enthusiastic contrafibularities... I'm anaspeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous in facilitating animadvertions that proffer a gomeril to forebear such pericumbobulation.....

User avatar
Chaos
Poster
Posts: 407
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:05 pm
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

Post by Chaos » Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:51 pm

Kiless wrote:
xouper wrote:
Doctor X wrote:... perhaps a separate section on JFK Conspiracy would prove efficacious.

I'd also like to propose a separate forum subsection for people who like to use big words when a diminutive one will do.


Well, I offer my most enthusiastic contrafibularities... I'm anaspeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous in facilitating animadvertions that proffer a gomeril to forebear such pericumbobulation.....


Huh? Anime woman talk funny! :?:

User avatar
DeusEx_Humana
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:55 am
Location: Houston

Post by DeusEx_Humana » Fri Jan 13, 2006 9:13 pm

It is time to split this thread into people that think the history category should be split, and people that don't.

User avatar
jj
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1820
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:13 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Curmudgeon
Location: Under the Evergreens

Post by jj » Fri Jan 13, 2006 9:17 pm

Maestro wrote:
Doctor X wrote:You are mean!

--J.D.

Yes, and the Standard Error is fairly small, too. :P


Yeah, his sigma is small, but his kurtosis is much larger than expected. Hmm.
Why does an infallable book have to be constantly revised?

Kiless
Regular Poster
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:28 pm

Post by Kiless » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:30 am

Doctor X wrote:
... sequipedalian.



... sesquipedalian.

Don't blame it on the sunshine.

-- K.S.

rjh01
Poster
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:23 am
Location: Canberra Australia

Post by rjh01 » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:35 am

Maybe we have too many categories. In most of them only two or three threads are updated in any one day.

rjh01
Poster
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:23 am
Location: Canberra Australia

Post by rjh01 » Sat Jan 14, 2006 2:18 am

Maybe we need to ration the number of threads a person can start. Maybe to two a week.

We have 16 threads that have a last post in December or January started by David all in history.

Kiless
Regular Poster
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:28 pm

Post by Kiless » Sat Jan 14, 2006 2:34 am

rjh01 wrote:Maybe we need to ration the number of threads a person can start. Maybe to two a week.

We have 16 threads that have a last post in December or January started by David all in history.


This may also limit trolling... but then, if you are fond of discussing various things and want to start a few new topics, it seems unfair to ration to only two threads a week.

Could history be joined with another forum to give it balance? Perhaps Origins?

Kiless
Regular Poster
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:28 pm

Post by Kiless » Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:26 am

Doctor X wrote:Must it always be the Great Unwashed that determine laws that rule gentlemen?

If someone started a lot of threads on ghosts, for whatever reason, that it crowded out other threads in the section, then one could argue that "Ghost Threads" should have its own section.

In a separate section he can start as many threads as he wishes to duck the evidence, and others can call him on it there. Those looking for a discussion on history do not have to wade through what is, frankly, a settled issue even if the Anti-Semites would wish to make it appear otherwise.

Creationist threads are not under science either.

--J.D.


Excellent points. Perhaps an area where pseudo-scientific/pseudo-historial threads can reside....

rjh01
Poster
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:23 am
Location: Canberra Australia

Post by rjh01 » Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:27 am

There is nothing to stop one person from commenting on many subjects. Just wait until someone else starts a thread and then participate in that thread.

If you do want to discuss many subjects and cannot wait for other people to start then doing so over a few weeks should not be a major issue.

A troll should be able to start one or two threads per week and post whatever they like in there. People who do not like trolls can then easily ignore those threads. People who like trolls can then actively participate in those threads. Result - everyone wins.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Post by xouper » Sat Jan 14, 2006 6:42 am

rjh01 wrote:Maybe we need to ration the number of threads a person can start. Maybe to two a week. We have 16 threads that have a last post in December or January started by David all in history.

I would not be in favor of imposing arbitrary limitations on everyone for the sake of solving a perceived problem with a small handful of posters. I would prefer to look for another way. Perhaps that was one of the points Doctor X was making when he said, "Must it always be the Great Unwashed that determine laws that rule gentlemen?"

User avatar
Beleth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1426
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: yo mammas puddin

Post by Beleth » Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:02 am

Gentlemen need no laws to rule them. Laws are for the Great Unwashed, but have to apply to all anyway.

Besides, without the revisionists, there'd be extremely little History traffic, if any. What is the point of a History forum on a skeptical board anyway, if not to talk about revisionism?
"Beleth thinks with beauty."
-- brainfart

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Post by xouper » Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:53 am

Beleth wrote:Gentlemen need no laws to rule them. Laws are for the Great Unwashed, but have to apply to all anyway.

OK, let's get right to the point here. Why should I be limited to starting two theads per week just because someone else on the forum is perceived as a problem? I simply do not agree with that logic. Find another solution that does not punish innocent people.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9999
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Post by Pyrrho » Sat Jan 14, 2006 2:41 pm

Official policy: I absolutely will not impose limits on posts per week or posts per day on people with unpopular opinions just because they have unpopular opinions.

I can set limits on the number of posts per 24 hours. I reserve that for situations that absolutely require such a solution, and those situations will have to be genuine rules violations. This is not one of those situations.

I still have reservations about splitting the History subforum. There's no great urgency to decide on this, so I'll step back from the discussion and continue to consider your opinions.

User avatar
Bunk
Regular Poster
Posts: 612
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:54 pm
Location: Alabama

Post by Bunk » Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:50 pm

I think that if the number of new threads opened by a poster becomes a problem, the best solution would be to move some of the new threads into existing threads of the same topic, thereby solving the problem without restricting free speech.

For example, all of David's threads could neatly fit under one titled "I like Hitler." (Darn it, I just disqualified myself.)

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Post by corymaylett » Sun Jan 15, 2006 1:46 am

Prior to the onslaught of Holocaust denial posts, the history section of these forums was a vibrant and important part of these boards.

One member, however, has pretty much taken over the section with constant one-subject posts. Over the past couple of months, there have been almost no topics started that didn't, in some way, relate to Holocaust denial. In other words, the actions of one member has pretty much reduced this whole section to being close to worthless for anything but arguing with David.

I understand the reluctance to deal with this problem because, on the surface, it runs counter to everyone's desire to promote free speech and a healthy exchange of ideas -- even unpopular ones.

On the other hand, is it fair to the other members to allow a single member to usurp an entire section of these boards in a non-stop promotion of his viewpoints? I don't see how it's in anybody's best interests to allow any section in these forums to be hijacked and used as a personal blog for one individual's pet theories.

User avatar
Beleth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1426
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: yo mammas puddin

Post by Beleth » Sun Jan 15, 2006 5:39 am

Thylacine wrote:Prior to the onslaught of Holocaust denial posts, the history section of these forums was a vibrant and important part of these boards.

One member, however, has pretty much taken over the section with constant one-subject posts. Over the past couple of months, there have been almost no topics started that didn't, in some way, relate to Holocaust denial. In other words, the actions of one member has pretty much reduced this whole section to being close to worthless for anything but arguing with David.

This would be true if new threads were a limited resource, but they are not.

Anyone is free at any time to start a non-revisionist thread here. In a situation like we have here, it takes the consent of the monopolized to be monopolized.


Doctor X wrote:Those unfamiliar with the behavior of gentlemen, or ladies, should not comment on it.

Physician, heed thyself.
"Beleth thinks with beauty."
-- brainfart

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Post by corymaylett » Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:03 am

Beleth wrote:This would be true if new threads were a limited resource, but they are not.

Anyone is free at any time to start a non-revisionist thread here. In a situation like we have here, it takes the consent of the monopolized to be monopolized.

Anyone may start a non-revisionist thread, but my point is few are chosing to do so. Blame the monopolized for their tacit consent if you'd like, but regardless of who is to blame, the history section is poorer because of it.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Post by xouper » Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:45 am

Doctor X wrote:Having a serious thread buried by ten "I Like Hitler!" threads proves most unwelcoming.

I don''t have a problem finding the serious threads from amongst the others. Perhaps it is a learned skill? Or perhaps the problem is in the eye of the beholder?

Do people feel this "inundation" effect will be permanent? Or will it come and go as people's interests vary over time?

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9999
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Post by Pyrrho » Sun Jan 15, 2006 11:46 am

Maybe the "Topic Sort" option will help by allowing users to group topics by Author, so that topics opened by people you'd prefer to ignore aren't scattered throughout the topic list. Unfortunately it doesn't allow you to "tag" a given author to force their topics to appear at the bottom.

What I'd prefer is a genuine "Hide Topic" option, but nobody has written one for phpBB. The "Topic Permissions" add-in we had here in the early days could be used to hide topics but it had unwanted side effects, such as making posts completely blank for some people.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Post by xouper » Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:36 pm

Doctor X wrote:One's ease is not universal.

Agreed. :)

User avatar
Beleth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1426
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: yo mammas puddin

Post by Beleth » Sun Jan 15, 2006 5:57 pm

Thylacine wrote:Anyone may start a non-revisionist thread, but my point is few are chosing to do so. Blame the monopolized for their tacit consent if you'd like, but regardless of who is to blame, the history section is poorer because of it.

Of the most recent 23 History topics as of this posting, 17 were started by David, and 4 more (including this one) are either Holocaust-related or David-related. That's 21 out of 23. So it's not that I don't see where you are coming from. We need a solution; I'm just not convinced that splitting the board is the right one.

Other boards here have become just as monopolized for a while. The difference is that the monopolization has all been contained in a single thread or two. The "sfseaserpent" thread over in the "UFOs ..." forum is an example. The difference between the two: the actions of one poster. Sfseaserpent had the courtesy to contain all his ramblings in one thread. David has chosen not to follow that path. Should it be our policy to make sweeping changes to the board whenever a poster comes along whose actions we don't like, or should we do the obvious, quick, decisive thing?

If David can't control himself, should we change the board to allow him to exercise even less control over himself?
"Beleth thinks with beauty."
-- brainfart

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Post by corymaylett » Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:06 pm

Beleth wrote:If David can't control himself, should we change the board to allow him to exercise even less control over himself?

No, I don't think so. Splitting the subject is an option, but I don't think it's the best solution. An official genocide denial section (or whatever) seems like a bad idea. I suspect that simply encouraging David (or any member) to refrain from abusing the forum by using it as a personal blog would be sufficient. If not, stronger encouragements are always an option.

In most every Internet forum, there are posters who disrupt the flow and the growth of the forum. Usually, these people are overtly disruptive and the solution is obvious. Sometimes, though, the disruptions are more subtle and build over time. But in the end, the effects are the same if the problems are not dealt with -- the character and personality of the forum changes, and members start drifting away.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9999
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Post by Pyrrho » Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:54 pm

I don't want to be in the position of generating user-specific rules. I won't open a subforum just to contain David's topics.

I do agree that the issue of the potential need for some kind of division of forums into more topic-specific areas is a valid issue, so I've done this:

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1667

As always, your comments are welcome.

BlueSpark
Poster
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:32 pm

Post by BlueSpark » Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:17 pm

Hey all,

I started this thread to see what y'all thought, and you have made some good points. I am now leaning towards the opinion that splitting the category may not be the best solution. If the Holocaust denial stuff were coming from more than one poster the option of splitting might be a good one, but it's just that David guy.

Perhaps the best solution is just to ignore David?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Post by xouper » Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:59 pm

BlueSpark wrote:Perhaps the best solution is just to ignore David?

In case you were wondering, that's what I do.

User avatar
izittrue
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1952
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:09 pm
Custom Title: former poster
Location: the desert southwest of Az

Post by izittrue » Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:26 pm

xouper wrote:
BlueSpark wrote:Perhaps the best solution is just to ignore David?

In case you were wondering, that's what I do.

who?
the j is silent
I am going to live forever because I believe in Santa Claus and God-
My sons 6 year old friend.

User avatar
Don_Fernandez
Poster
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:37 pm
Location: Under the Milky Way

Post by Don_Fernandez » Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:45 pm

Maestro wrote:I don't want to be in the position of generating user-specific rules. I won't open a subforum just to contain David's topics.

Then what about a subforum to contain those topics not by David... ;)
"Such... is the respect paid to science that the most absurd opinions may become current, provided they are expressed in language, the sound of which recalls some well-known scientific phrase"
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)