The following have agreed to work as moderators: John Geraghty (Republic of Ireland), Stephen Turner (England), Gary Loughran (Northern Ireland), Antti Hynonen (Finland), Evan Burton (Australia), and Kathy Beckett (USA).

These moderators will have the power ro remove offensive comments in the Political Conspiracy section. They will not be deleting the arguments that members are expressing. This is not an attempt to censor people's views.

Moderators will send me a copy of the passage that has been deleted? I will keep a record of these deletions that can be used later if we have to consider deleting someone’s membership. Details will also be sent to the person who has had passages removed.

It is hoped that this new moderating system will stop members from making offensive comments in the first place. If not, the moderating system might encourage member's to change their approach to debate.

It is possible that we will get a case where a member appears to be determined to cause trouble. We will have to consider removing this person from the forum. This will be decided by a majority decision of the moderating committee and the three administrators of the forum.

For further guidance of expected behaviour see:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243

Hi,

Being one of the first of the moderating committee to tread lightly into posting here - I'd like to give everyone a chance to positively contribute the continued well being of this esteemed forum.

As an attempt at a statement of intent and as a means of, hopefully, allaying and misconceptions or fears about the role I am undertaking; I submit the following.

I have obviously not been a member long enough to know better than to accept this role, but long enough to know that the vastly overwhelming number of members post with good faith, their research, opinions and questions. The forum membership is extremely knowledgeable and mature and, as a result, self regulating in the extreme. I do not intend, nor will I do anything to ruin the well established forum relationships and all that entails.

I can ensure all that my personal integrity will enable impartial decision making. I am also generously endowed with a sense of humour, and thick skin, amongst other things, which I hope will serve me well.

I intend to be reasonably passive; not intervening unless asked to and only then after careful consideration with the moderating committee as a whole. My preference would be for first party communication only to the committee. I am aware that in the modern workplace and everyday life personal perception rather than intention is seemingly nine tenths of the law. Therefore if its OK for the folk involved I'm inclined to not intervene on a 3rd party request, though as with everything in life, this cannot be said to be without exception.

I sincerely hope that no-one countenances the idea that the forum is now a nanny/police state. I would be massively disappointed if the appointment of the committee makes any forum member think this. The moderating function has always been undertaken and operated in the background in a discreet manner and I hope to continue this.

If the new committee's formation results in John having more time to deal with vastly more important issues then a modicum of success will have already been achieved.

All communication will be treated with confidentiality and only shared and discussed amongst the committee. I can say for certain that a PM will never surface on the forum from me.

I have posted this so hopefully forum members can advise me on how best to progress and also to give an idea of my vision of my role and moderating style.

I hope to be redundant and fully expect to be.

Gary

Moderating this forum is the best thing that could have ever happened here .... It's a shame it had to come to this , but it will be a relief to be able to post here without being constantly personally insulted, or feeling the need to insult anyone in return for their unkind remarks .

It's true that discussing certain subjects can and does bring out the worst in some people at times ... myself included .. and I am very happy to see that having this forum moderated will put an end to this type of unnecessary behavior .

I protest Burton being a moderator. He is one of the avid BAD ASTRONOMY advocates who
joined this forum only to debunk my Apollo studies. He is a fox in charge of the henhouse.
He has a partisan agenda.

Jack

Hi all, I dont intend to use up much bandwidth here.

I have been a member of this Forum for the past two years. I have decidedly strong views on JFK, RFK,MLK and the present creeping nature of the 21st century Police State mentality.

I will attempt to be fair, and ballanced in any adjudication, a light touch is called for I believe, but hope to be largely redundant.

Regards, Steve.

Just to stick my ore in the water. Jack, you are totally missing the point. Everyone who posts here has a partisan agenda. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn’t mean they can’t be a board moderator. I’m only familiar with three of the peoples chosen, John G., Stephen and Evan. If the are representative of Gary, Antti (love to know how to pronounce it) and Kathy – then I think John S. did an excellent job of picking the moderating committee.

A moderator needs to be level headed enough to pull back from a spat and look at it honestly. Of the three I know, all possess this trait. Lets be honest, if I were to protest moderators based on perceived partisan agendas or personal biases, I’d protest John and Stephen because the three of us definitely don’t see eye to eye. However, if I had felt it were my place to volunteer someone, Stephen Turner was my first choice. While we’ve disagreed, he has ALWAYS been able to pull back from the heat of the moment, consider my points honestly and give honest replies without holding a grudge. This is the trait I’d look for in a moderator. I believe its obvious that John G., Stephen and Evan share this trait, or else John S. wouldn’t have picked them.

Although, I still worry about John G. being a moderator here. He’s so young and obviously intelligent with what appears to be a bright future ahead of him; I’d hate to think that I’d be party to the inflecting of lifelong emotional scars that could accompany his being a moderator.

Anyway, thanks to all who volunteered for this thankless duty.

I shall book my therapy sessions in advance then Steve!
I relish the task and believe that it is indeed a step in the right direction in maintaining and imroving the integrity of the forum.

All the best,
John

I would like to thank the moderators for doing a great job on the forum. They seem to have been more successful than I ever was in keeping people from insulting each other.

They are currently trying to persuade all members to add a photograph as a avatar. I hope that all members will abide by this rule.

We expect members to add a photograph as an avatar (it helps to humanize communications):

Select “My Controls” (top, right of the screen).

On the left-hand side click ‘Edit Avatar Settings’ (under Personal Profile).

Go to the bottom of the page where it says ‘Upload a new image from your computer’. Click ‘Browse’.

(A box will appear at the top that will show what is on your computer. You now have to find your photograph (best to leave it on your Desktop – if not, find the folder where you have stored it).

Click the image and then click ‘Open’.

Now click ‘Update Avatar’. You picture should now appear on the screen. It will now appear every time you make a posting.

If you have difficulty in this, please send me your photograph by email and I will do it for you (you will also need to send me your password).

I propose that Mr. Burton be removed as a "moderator".

He has accused me of frivolity, insincerity, and dishonesty in reply
to a serious posting I made.

He is clearly using his position to threaten me in favor of his known
bias against me.

Jack

Mr. Simkin,

Sorry, but I felt that I could no longer remain silent RE: Jack White's request to sanction Mr. Burton.

Since registering at the Education Forum, I was quite enamoured of the site's (fairly) free and open dialogue, which included a variety of personalities and usually intelligent discourse. It is not often that the mix of personalities posting here could be found continuing in polite discourse, over any length of time, without descending into something less than polite conversation, given the topics discussed and the emotional attachment many seem to have.

Mr. Burton has, IMO, done very well, as he has been both moderator and an involved discussant in many of these postings. It would be a shame to remove him.

Mr. White has on more than one occasion baited threads with seemingly innocent 'questions' about images he posted, only to provoke and on occasion, insult anyone responding. The Political Conspiracy Forum has become dominated with Apollo hoax threads, which do little but descend into open warfare. Many have replied in steamed reposts, but I do sense the hand of Mr. White in provoking at least some of this.

Mr. Burton has been amoung the several (including me) who have found the pro-Apollo hoax posts to be specious and provocational, adding little more than a spiral into base arguments without any real merit.

I would not deny anyone the opportunity to express their freedom of speech. But the whole baiting, specious claims, lack of cogent defense of claims made, provocations made to anger reposters, descending into childish arguments, and then, when the fruits of such behavior results in such a request as Mr. White has made, it would seem, to me at least, that the whole 'Apollo Hoax' theme must go the way of the slide rule, for a while at least. It is a waste of good dicussion space. I read these threads (for entertainment purposes in a kind of of sensational glee, to see the repostes spiral out of control in some sort of tabloid like caricature) and have realized that the domination of this forum by this topic will certainly condemn the forum to obscurity and marginalization sooner or later.

I hope that you keep Mr. Burton as moderator and can figure out something to do concerning the Apollo Hoax threads, before the site becomes terminally infected.

Thanks.

some how we'll muddle through, either way.....

Jack,
I think that it is very fair to say that the 'threats' have been a two way affair, consisting mostly of requests of factual clarifications from both sides, in this case, the posting of information on the identity of photographs. It is my personal opinion, and my opinion as a moderator, that no threats have been made. Evan said that he would lock down a thread based on the fact that there has not been an identification of an image, thus making the discussion somewhat useless if their veracity can not be verified. I would not question the veracity of the photographs, as I would find it unlikely that you would lie.

The political conspiracies section is awash with Apollo material that is confined to discussion between 5 or six people on opposing sides of the argument. I hardly feel that the interest in tis topic warrants the voume of threads, thus a narrowing of focus should be undertaken. I would, however, not close threads for this reason alone, I would simply ask that we move the discussion onto one overall thread encompassing the topic as a whole.

I would not support Evan's removal as a moderator and I find using the term 'threat' somewhat harsh. Moderators will of course not tolerate any real threats, but so far as I a concerned, this is not a threat.

All the best in the discussion friends,
John Geraghty

Jack,

I have not threatened to delete your post; I said I would lock the thread if at least a mission number were not provided.

I have not questioned your honesty; I said that without an image number - as far as I am concerned - they might be non-genuine and not worthy of wasting time. If you do not have an image number for them, then for all you know they might not be the genuine images. They look genuine to me, but without an image number I cannot be sure.

I do question your sincerity when you ask a question but withhold information that will help us answer your question. There are close to 6000 images from six missions that landed on the lunar surface; as good as I think my Apollo knowledge is, I am not omnipotent and do not know every image off the top of my head. If you have details of the image numbers or missions, then you are being frivolous.

Without the information I asked for, I answered as best I could:

- There are multiple examples of a series of images taken of a seemingly uninteresting feature.

- The object may be a gnomon of some type, or possibly a core sample tube.

There are other than Apollo threads on this sub-forum, and people have expressed concern that they are being pushed to the bottom of the list because the Apollo threads are dominating. Locking a frivolous thread will help address that problem without deleting your original post.

So, again, please provide a mission number or image IDs (if known). If you do not know what mission or image numbers they are, please say so. Otherwise I will lock the thread later this afternoon.

It appears that Mr. Burton has carried out his threat to
lock a TOPIC WHICH I ORIGINATED. I spent fifteen minutes
composing a message and attaching a photo. It was rejected
and lost, and I got this message:

YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO REPLY TO THIS TOPIC.

This is a crappy way to run a forum devoted to research.

Jack

The thread has NOT been locked and it has NEVER been locked.

I suggest the workman examine himself before blaming the tools.

To all Moderators: (sent via PM)

I believe the time has come for serious and public censure.

This either applies to Evan Burton or Jack White – Only you know who is right and who is wrong!

I wont go into the gory details of why Jack has done what he has done, but here is the crux of the matter. Either Jack or Evan is intentionally lying in order to make a point.

Either Evan locked the thread:

“A very peculiar Apollo series, ...Bernice, please post image here:”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10008

or he did not.


If he did then he needs censure because he has openly said that he did not lock the thread in question in the post immediately above:

“The thread has NOT been locked and it has NEVER been locked.”

If he did not lock the thread then Jack is intentionally trying to deceive when he posts:

“I will continue to post research in the "four sticks" series
regardless of how many times Apollogist Burton locks it...
every day if necessary. He is totally out of line to consider
it his power to censor legitimate research which he disagrees
with. He certainly has no power to control how I conduct
my research or how I publish it. I REFUSE TO BE CENSORED.”

From:

Continuing the unfairly locked apollo series, ...this is serious research, despite Burton's bias:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10025

There is a reason that there are several moderators on this forum – this is it!

Well I know nothing about the people who run this site and their abilities and/or willingness to do it, but there should be logs that can be searched to see if the thread was locked. On my own forums I have been called to do similar things and the result was never ambiguous.

I totally agree. I am more than happy to leave this matter in the hands of other mods.

As only John S and Andy have access to the forum audit logs (I know I do not have any such access), I have asked them to confirm that what I have said is correct.

Yeah and below that it said:

"You are not logged in, you may log in below".

You used the "Fast Reply" option it opens whether you are logged in or not [See PS at bottom of post]. If you try to reply to a locked thread you get a different error message:

"Sorry, this topic has been locked"

Don't believe me? Try the following experiment - Part 1

1) Log out 2) go to any thread 3) click the 'Fast Reply' button, type any gibberish you want it doesn't make a difference it won't post 4) click the “Add Reply” button see which error message you get

Part 2

1) Log in 2) go to a locked thread* 3) click the “Reply” button on any message and see what message you get.

Presumably the moderators of this forum will be able to confirm that someone using your IP tried to reply using “Fast Reply” on the original thread, then minutes later you logged in** and then you started the threads claiming the original one had been locked.

You owe Evan an apology but I seriously doubt you have enough courage to admit your error and offer it.

As for you lost time we all know the forum software isn’t perfect some times messages “go missing’ that’s another reason you should compose you messages using a word processing program (i.e. “Word” “WordPerfect” etc) and then copy it to the forum. This is already recommended in the forum’s rules.

Len

* Like this one for example http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9664 locked threads can be found using the “Topics” scroll down menu at the bottom of the Political Conspiracies page

** Either that or you switched computers or browsers

ATTN any moderators who haven’t already noticed I believe Jack committed a serious breech of forum rules as I spelled out in the “A very peculiar Apollo series” thread.


PS – I just got the “You do not have permission to reply to this topic” error it seems that the software might log people out on its own. Jack still should have noticed the line below telling him he wasn’t logged in

What you have said Evan is correct.