There has been some discussion regarding Rule (iv) of the forum rules of behaviour. It has been suggested that the motivations of a poster should be able to be questioned. Part of Rule (iv) currently forbids this.

What is your opinion? Should you be able to question why a poster makes the posts they do, why they hold those opinions?

Please note this is NOT an "official" rule change vote; it is simply a vehicle to allow the board owners to know the opinions of forum members.

The poll / discussion will also be repeated on the Political Conspiracy section of the board. You might have one opinion on one section of the board, and a different opinion for a different section of the board. Please use the respective sections to make your opinions known.

Thank you!

My own opinion is that the rule should remain. To me, it doesn't matter what the motivations of a poster are. If I disagree with what they say, I'll say why I disagree. If I believe they are posting inaccurate or misleading data, then I'll demonstrate why the posts are inaccurate or misleading. Who posts the statements is mostly irrelevant, in my opinion. To me, calling some as a "disinfo agent" or "agent provocateur" simply means you are unable to counter to other person's argument.

Evan, in my opinion you are raising an important issue. However, I'm unclear of exactly what you are asking. It may be just semantics, but I wonder if you could clarify a couple of points for me, please?

"Questioning Motivations"' seems to (me to) have some connotations that appear (to me) different from a statement like ''Should you be able to question why a poster makes the posts they do, why they hold those opinions?

If this is so, and the real question is ''Should you be able to question why a poster makes the posts they do, why they hold those opinions?'' then I think that already happens in many ways (and personally, I have no problems with questions along that line ( in fact, i'd welcome them with glee ). Perhaps you are more meaning to say ''cast aspersions'' or something along that line. Mis-represantations, defamation etc. ??? If that is so, then, certainly, I agree with you.

Correct John.

If someone were to say to me "You support this because you are right-wing and pro-military; you are biased on this topic!" then I would have no problems, even if I were not right-wing, etc.

When people accuse me of being a paid disinformation agent, acting on orders of my superiors, etc, then I strongly object.

What is a poster's perceived motives are only to thwart - rather than to forward a discussion; what if the perceived motives are to endlessly counter a certain poster or subject with an immediate and often unsubstantive debunk, naysay, element of doubt for doubt sake; what if a poster's perceived motives are to constantly attempt character assassination on a website, writer, witnesses, etc. that others post - and this forms a clear pattern of behavior that is obstructive and not condusive to furthering a discussion and the attempt to get to the truth of a matter - but the opposite - to thwart anyone making progress toward getting to the truth of a matter?......It is one thing to hold another position that a poster; it is quite another to act as an obstacle to that person's making their points; presenting their evidence; working with others toward an approximation of the truth of the matter, etc. In such cases, only a questioning and discussion of the 'motives' for acting this way can clear this up and prevent this obstructive behavior, IMO. It is my observation that a few on this Forum do not want certain topics discussed, and act in such a manner as to attempt to negate others posting of information they don't want seen - mostly with negativity, quantity, as homs, constantly ending all 'offending' posts with a debunk - no matter how unsubstantive, etc. It has already driven several off the Forum and more to go inactive, IMO. It is the antithesis of the kind of collegial discussion that should be seen here - even if persons hold very divergent opinions on a subject.

Then it should be easy to prove what the person has said is wrong. If it is simple doubt, then counter the doubt with evidence.


Then it will be apparent, and readers can decide for themselves if what they say has any weight. Once again, counter their arguments with facts; demonstrate that they cannot muster any real evidence and are force to resort to 'character assassination'.


What about in the exact opposite case, where someone makes claims and then refuses to discuss the counter-claims, making it impossible to get to the truth of the matter? Someone who has a clear pattern of behaviour like this? A 'hit & run' poster, for instance?


If their points are flawed or wrong, why is it undesirable to point it out? To question it? If someone is acting - unfairly - as an obstacle, then that person should have the offending post reported and let the moderators decide if any action is required.


I disagree. If people are violating Forum rules, then they should be reported. If they are not violating rules, then it is up to the reader to decide whose arguments carry the most weight, to determine the veracity of various statements. WHO makes the statements is almost irrelevant.

I'll attack what the poster says, if I disagree with them. Attacking the person is a sign of inability to counter an argument, and that's what questioning a poster's motives is... especially when no proof as to the motives can be produced. It is, in some cases, simply slandering the poster. Would it be acceptable for me to question your motives, why you hold your views? Would it be acceptable for me to suggest you were being paid to advance certain ideas or views? Would it be right for me to proffer the idea that you stand up for the ideas you do because you are acting under instructions to do so?

NO. It is not.


Then negate that by raising those topics and MAKING them discuss that topic! They'll hate it.


Information may be right , wrong, or sufficiently indeterminate that it is up to the reader - not me, not you - to decide if it is of value. If there are ad homs, report the post. If the information is unsubstantial, then demonstrate that by pointing out the flaws in the information, showing where it is wrong.


Those people, IMO, hold similar views and far from wanting a wide discussion on topics, wish to stifle any contrasting posts on topics; the last thing they want is divergent opinions. Notice how homogenous all the posts are on one forum which several members have chosen to go to? I think you'd find it difficult to show any differing opinion on that particular forum.

To start with the notion that all here are honest brokers and their own agents is IMO misguided. To ignore that some are for a variety of reasons and motives simply on Forums to disrupt, debunking in and of itself (without thinking through the evidence themselves, but simply parroting the official lines), trying to disrupt the orderly flow and conversation of others is NAIVE to the extreme. Need I cite operations such as Mockingbird, Cointelpro, CHAOS, and MANY others?! Need I remind the Forum of the recent attack on the Forum and JS by Bohling? I say the same and similar might [or does] go on on the Forum and we need to be able to identify and expose it - without our hands tied. 

The case of Tim Gratz is instructive and for some too long ago to be well known - or known at all. He was notorious for posting at the end of any thread he disagreed with with a post - no matter how frivolous or off point - as long as he stopped the thread; made it into a circus; acted as a provocator or tried to debunk/naysay/negate (usually without substance). Similar things go on on the Forum today. Gratz was expelled. 

Engaging some provacteurs is only playing into their game - to endlessly talk about [really divert] a subject - never getting to the particulars; never acknowledging points or postions of others; only negating and debunking - making the thread look like a circus. On many forums I know such repeat offenders are asked to leave. 

I have never said that they need to be 'honest'. What they say is the important thing.


Then they are to be reported and let we moderators sort it out.


And how was that attack negated? By showing how what the person said was wrong.


What if they are incorrectly "identified"? What if someone simply has a different opinion... but gets tagged as an agent? It has the potential to devolve into something akin to systems we want to rid ourselves of, not encourage.


Then the system works, does it not? Complaints were made, action was taken... after due consideration.


As long as Forum rules are observed, then free speech should NOT be stifled.

BTW, this shouldn't just be between Peter and myself; I think most posters know our respective positions.

What are other peoples opinions?

What about the lurkers? Please comment.

Thanks!

Peter Lemkin, I say this without any malice whatsoever, you my friend, perhaps without realising it, are the worst offender for calling fellow members "dis- info agents" and "provocateurs". Since being a member here, some years now, I've seen you accuse at least six members of being one of the above. In the past, when I first came here, you even sent me P.M.'s warning me not to trust certain members. You may think me naive but personally I dont believe any of the members here are dis- info agents or deliberate provocateurs, just people who have differant opinions and wish to express them, but rest assured if any of these 'dark forces' ever do manifest here your fellow members, who are actually quite intelligent, will soon recognise them for what they are and act accordingly. What we dont need are constant warnings and accusations. On a forum used by adults rule iv shouldn't be necessary, unfortunately it very much is. Rule iv must stay. BTW, before reading your above post I didn't realise Tom Gratz had been expelled, I always imagined he'd just left because of the hostility he received here. Hmm, quite worrying that, I'll obviously have to be a lot more careful not to upset the wrong people around here.

If this forum has been under attack by outside forces wishing to cause such division that it ends up having to shut down, how should this be addressed? If it is known to have been under attack at one time, what is to say it is not under attack at all times?

If there are posters here, for example, who have a tendency to try to divide and conquer and/or have compiled a track record elsewhere of working to cause division and/or working with the agendas of others, can that be defined or even suggested while staying within the rules? Or, would it cause more harm to try to address these issues than to simply try to keep a spirit of comeraderie and focus on the evidence?

Pamela, IMO a very pertinent post.

(What doesn't shut the forum down makes it stronger. No doubt it is under attack in various ways much of the time. In a sense the attacks are a guage of the Forums importance. What I personally find regretful is that the vast areas of educational opportunities, apart from the JFK and PC sections ''fights'' dominate so much that quite likely serious educators in other fields are reticent to participate. This is really an Education Forum, (IMO) for Students (I'm one) as well as Teachers. It's also not a place for the faint hearted many times and this can no doubt be be alleviated in various ways.)

Further (again IMO) , Truth needs no defense. If a knowing of a pattern of disruption is revealed then that is helpful.

In a sense, as well, a spirit of comraderie (in relation to truth) and particularly a focus on evidence in itself by those devoted to it creates an atmosphere wherein such disruption finds no hold and then is resolved over time naturally (and the process probably is an education for all concerned as well.)

Tim Gratz did post at the end of threads he did not want to be discussed. Many members did not read those threads when his name appeared at the end. However, Tim was not expelled, he was placed on moderation. He continued to post for some time after that but he eventually left in the run-up to the presidential elections. Understandably, he found it difficult to discuss the possibility that the US would no longer have a right-winger in the White House. (Remember the appalling disinformation campaign against John Kerry in the 2004 election?). The important point was that the moderation system was a good way of dealing with Tim Gratz. It has also been a good way of dealing with other members.

I stand corrected as to what caused Tim to leave. I do believe IMO that there are a few currently on the Forum who cause others to not participate in (or even read) certain threads and even those who IMO are deliberate in their attacks and methodology of posting SO AS to discourage the thread being read or participated in - this happens in the JFK photo evidence section and in the 911 section and a few others. John, before there were moderators you were trying to deal with Gratz' behavior youself and even though once of placing him in a separate section in which to post. I don't see how easily the moderators are empowered to remove someone who deliberately tries to stifle debate; make a circus of a thread or the Forum as a whole, cleverly badgers people from posting on a subject, etc. - even if we could agree on that issue by vote. 


Dennis, I think you can't distinguish clearly between attacks and defense from attacks. Dirty tricks are not just things I've read about - I've had them happen to me in my life. I've also belonged to organizations and groups that were infiltrated or exposed to dirty-tricks, spying upon, we later learned in detail - though suspected at the time. I suppose that does add a sensitivity others who feel more a part of the so-called 'dominant' and 'approved' societal viewpoint on history, polity structure, et al. 

One thing that always interests me is those who battle/rage against those who would challenge the status quo - the official version of things...for if they are correct, those of us who challenge that are meerly nuts and all is right as rain....BUT, if we who challenge are correct [on JFK, MLK, RFK, 911 et al.] then there really is something to battle and rage against - as America [and true for other nations as well] is an overthrown and occupied, manipulated, propagandized, covered-up magicshow of some elite group. While I realize some are outraged that their beloved ideal of their polity, history and nation are being challenged, some others, IMO are actively trying to keep the lid on the truth from emerging......and I'll fight them to win back my nation and planet however I can. To do less would be to relinquish my duty as a human committed to certain principles of truth, law, democracy, equality, peace, justice, ecocentric sustainability, and a bottom-up model for humans - not top-down.

Running the risk of 'questioning your motives' am I alone in finding this an extraordinarily pompous statement? (I also note with resigned amusement the omission of gender equality from your list).
Your problem Peter is that you are convinced by a wide range conspiracy narratives to such an extent that they have become part of your identity. You will therefore always question the motives of posters who disagree with you hence your desire I presume for a rule change.

Ironic that Peter accuses Dennis of not being able to "distinguish clearly between attacks and defense from attacks" when he, rather than Dennis, obviously suffers from such an inability. In Peter's case it is to "distinguish clearly between attacks and" simple disagreement with his views. Perhaps Peter can point to examples of when his numerous personal attacks directed at Evan, Kevin, Matthew or me were preceeded by personal attacks on him. Even in his exchanges with Craig the former normally threw the 1st stone.

Not being able to respond to our posts with facts or logic he resorts to spam and/or personal attacks. It's not at all surprising that he would want the rule to be changed. Fortunately no other members seem to agree with him.

Please leave the personal comments out of this thread; let's discuss the pros and cons of changing the rule, our opinions on why it should or should not happen.

Thanks!

I noticed to my surprise two other members voted for Peter's proposed rule change. I was wondering if either of them could explain why they thought it should be changed.

Yes, Len's right, in fact it should be a requirement for voting. Without it being so the voting is really quite meaningless. I think I made my reasons clear why rule iv needs to stay, without it the forum would be ruined by witch hunts and accusations by the more paranoid amongst us.
Also, and I know this is off topic, does anyone else think it a good idea that when a member is placed on moderation or expelled his/her name should be posted, along with the offence, in this section? That way members can actually see the rules (including rule iv) are clearly being enforced and that in itself, should act as a deterrent. It would also stop wild rumors circulating, at the moment if a regular member isn't seen posting for a few weeks the P.M.'s start flying around asking if so and so has been banned along with all kinds of imaginary reasons as to why. Any thoughts?

While I voted not to change the rule, I am wondering if there might be another way to address the complexities of the situation, such as a thread where concerns, not about the motives of posters, but about the threads themselves, might be addressed.

We just had an example this week when a member asked that material that had segued into a different topic be removed from that thread and put into its own thread. If there were a comments area there might be more feedback from those involved in a thread if it starts to disintegrate or have other issues with it.

Also, there might be able to be discussion about some of the tactics used to try to hijack or shut down a thread, but focusing on the material posted, not the poster.

I voted to modify the rule. Generally every aspect of the rule is good, apart from the no questioning of a posters motivation. The motivation of a poster is an absolutely vital piece of information in determining a posts validity - that cannot necessarily be gleaned from a biography. A posters motivation is normally understood in the vast majority of posts - e.g. David tallbot publicising a book. The small handful of people who actually know rule iv are the worst offenders. The vast vast majority of the forum membership have never had to look at this rule never mind report on it. Posters motivations are questioned or understood, through implication, in a great number of posts on the forum - where no complaint is ever made and/or no moderator decides to interfere.

The rule, unfortunately (and sorry for harping on), has become something of weapon...all too often pedants are examining the 'rules' with more dilligence than they examine posts. I find this recourse to rules, as a means of hounding members (often disguised as genuine concern), an anathema.

If questioning a posters motivation is done with 'too much enthusiasm' - the personal attack portion of the rule can be brought in to play.

Couldn't have said it better. You captured it perfectly. Those who know about and 'use' this rule as a 'weapon' are the worst offenders and most suspect [IMO] as to the motivation behind their posts, and being on the Forum. However, we must lean toward a presumption of innocence, except where there has been a long and tireless repetition of resort to the 'rules' to try to get others on moderation, in trouble, or tripped-up in other ways. If someone's motivation in repeated [not any one or a few] posts is to disrupt the Forum, cause chaos, provoke, try to get political enemies in trouble or divert threads should be considered for moderation or, if repeated several times, removal, IMO. Personally, I have no problem with those who disagree, but with those who are disagreeable....and especially when one can reasonable conclude it is not a personality defect, but a tactic. [motivation]

I see it the other way.

It seems to me that the way it works over here, is that if one disagrees with what is being written, and argues with the one posting the initial position(which should be what a debate is), one is labeled a "disinfo" agent.
Those that disagree do so with as much fervency as those who create the thread in the first place. I have no idea why it is perfectly OK for someone to create thread after thread, post after post, but not OK for the other folks to respond. And it is the case that the same people do the same things.

If I disagreed with a position, and it was posted, I would have no hesitancy to post my disagreement. That it is done frequently is because the subject matter is posted frequently. Makes sense to me.


Poster's motivations are already being questioned, all the time. Calling people Borg, etcetera, are classic examples of this. And I think the attempt at the rule change is nothing more than trying to justify that.


Kathy

I agree with Kathy.

It seems like the reason for some to want a rule change is to be able to insult each other a bit more freely,
as if the existing name calling/labelling game was not repulsive enough.

If the rule is changed, surely, the ones benefiting from it will be those who dominate the Forum by trying to
ram their world views down our throats in each of the posts they make or those who hang around the Forum 24/7
like a police patrol car only to jump in every thread regardless of the subject and those who use bullying people
online as a means of self-satisfaction.

agreed