Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points


Recommended Posts

As I always do, I will begin by saying that this is an extremely good forum. I am very pleased by the diversity of the topics presented. There is certainly something here for everyone, and I have learned alot by reading these posts.

And as well, I am certainly impressed with the membership we have. Some of the greatest researchers in the world are actively contributing to the inquiries of others.

However, it saddens me greatly when I find that a debate has turned "sour', and has become a personal argument in which the information originally presented becomes secondary to personal attacks.

These are good people, who, for one reason or another, become angry and openly create a situation that becomes vitriolic, and the effect of the positions debated is lessened.

I can certainly understand the frustration, as I have been in much the same situation, but this still does not excuse the behavior.

I am also bothered by the fact, that when it is brought to one's attention that he/she is overstepping bounds, that no thought is taken of that observation, and it continues.

And then, on the other hand,there are those who would be more noble--that retract, that rethink-- thank you for this on behalf of the Forum. It shows a level of magnanimity. These are worthy of more respect. (I do not need to name you.) It takes alot of courage to apologize,or to retract one's wording, especially when seen by so many.

Perhaps we are reacting too quickly in our responses, and we should take a moment to consider a better way to respond. I am hopeful that we can better fight our positions, as positions, and keep a level of respect for each other.

This is supposed to be a research resource ,and

I am absolutely amazed at this!!! Forgive me if I read this wrong but we have to "be nice and play along " so he will deliver? Heck, no!!!!Not me!!!!

Mr. Dolva, I have read many of your posts, and for the most part they are well thought out and fairly logical (with a few, here and there, that I just didn't understand, but they looked really good.) For you to have to watch what you say, and ask us to do the same,for we might upset the old boy, (and you won't get your map)is ridiculous. Since when are we less than he?

Compartmentalising??????

If you didn't have such an interest in this map, I don't believe you'd cater to him like this.

This is not a mental health forum, and I lack the expertise in creating an enviornment that Tom won't be compartmentalized and will be "encouraged to grow" in.

I leave that to you. I'm done.

Kathy Beckett

An interesting philosophy!

Even more interesting when one actually practices what they preach.

Since most of those attachements, which include virtually every aspect of the Time/Life Survey Plat; the US Secret Service Survey Plat; the FBI Survey Plat; as well as the later WC Survey Plat; and finally, the last FBI Survey Plat;, to include tremendous amounts of information relative to the survey notes of Mr. West, were provided on this forum long prior to your short visit, and since you did not bother to even check this information out prior to "launching" your erroneous statements, then:

Could one expect some magnanimous gesture on your part?

Perhaps we are reacting too quickly in our responses, and we should take a moment to consider a better way to respond.

A response, which has a basis and foundation in fact, is usually the best type of response.

Thomas,

I wrote this as well in that quote.

'I can certainly understand the frustration, as I have been in much the same situation, but this still does not excuse the behavior."

Kathy

BTW, this had nothing to do with either you or "your maps".

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
  • Replies 369
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am asking members to use the "Report" function, found on the left hand side of each post, that is when they deem that there is something inappropriate in a post. It is a huge task for moderators to carefully follow and read each post, therefore I am officially requesting the help of members in "monitoring" posts.

Thank you.

Edited by Antti Hynonen
Link to post
Share on other sites
On the 12th November I posted a message about the behaviour of members.

John,

Would it be possible to ban the common practice I have observed here

that I refer to as "Grafitti Tagging"? That is the practice of constantly

adding the last quoted posting to a larger thread which only consists

of a few critical lines or negative comments. For instance, asking for a source

when that source obviously is the poster or a personal opinion or observations

of a poster, correcting a spelling, quibbling with the actual date or time an event

happened, when it is clearly indicated in the posting when it occurred,

twisting words or changing meanings or inserting inflammatory statements,

designed to derail a thread, etc. Like "criminal knowledge", etc.

We both know who the frequent offenders are and we can only speculate

about their intentions, but their goal is quite clear. To deflect, defray, or

derail a posting from a path they disagree with entirely.

Thank you,

John Bevilaqua

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

On another thread I recently made a post asking members not to threaten other members on this Forum. I particularly mentioned the types of threats that were recently visible on this thread.

The consequence I said, would be that I'd send a request to John Simkin to have any such members placed on permanent moderation.

This request, I have now put forward.

I repeat, do not threaten fellow members or anyone else on this Forum.

:angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter Lemkin Posted Today, 08:25 AM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Dec 7 2007, 09:04 AM)

On another thread I recently made a post asking members not to threaten other members on this Forum. I particularly mentioned the types of threats that were recently visible on this thread.

The consequence I said, would be that I'd send a request to John Simkin to have any such members placed on permanent moderation.

This request, I have now put forward.

I repeat, do not threaten fellow members or anyone else on this Forum.

THIS IN TOTALLY INSANE. NOW THE MODERATORS ARE DISRUPTING THE THREAD. I ASKED TIM TO STOP DIVERTING THE THREAD AND TRYING TO DERAIL IT BY ENDLESSLY POSTING ON SEVERAL WITH OFF-TOPIC AND NAGGING REMARKS. I HAVE TRIED SENDING SUCH 'REPORTS' TO THE MODERATORS, BUT 99% OF THE TIME NOTHING IS DONE. THEN HE STARTS WITH THE UNTRUE, ALREADY DISCUSSED NEGATIVE INFORMATION ON ME - WHICH IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE TREAD; NOT TRUE; DISCUSSED BY HIM, ME AND OTHERS ON ANOTHER THREAD AND ONLY HIS WAY TO INTIMIDATE AND HURL VENOM AT ME. SO HE GETS SOME 'BREAK' BECAUSE HE DIDN'T SAY HE'D DO IT...HE JUST DOES IT?! AND BECAUSE I DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE 'REPORT' PROCESS - I THINK I MIGHT EVEN HAVE - DON'T REMEMBER TO TELL THE TRUTH. HE AND OTHERS HAVE EVEN THREATENED TO SUE PEOPLE ON THE FORUM IN COURT...AND NONE WERE BANNED. I THINK THE IMMODERATORS SHOULD LOOK AT ALL THE FACTS, MAYBE ASK WHAT IS GOI

G ON - MAYBE READ THE POSTS BEFORE THE ONE THEY FOCUS UPON, AND ONE ABOVE HAS AN AXE T

GRIND WITH ME ANYWAY, AND WOULD TAKE DELIGHT IN NEGATIVE THINGS HAPPENING TO ME

SO VERY GOOD GANG - GRATZ AND THE IMMODERATORS HAVE DERAILED THE THREAD ON PLUMLEE.

I'D ALSO ADD THAT ANY IMMODERATOR WHO PROPOSES PERMANANT BANNING BEFORE TEMPORARY BANNING OR BANNING WITHOUT CAUSE SHOULD THEMSELVES BE BANNED. [POWER SEEMS TO CORRUPT]. AND HOW ABOUT LOOKING AT A PERSONS GENERAL DEPORT ON THE FORUM. I DON'T KNOW IF SOME OF THE IMMODERATORS ARE MYOPTIC AND ONLY LOOK AT THE REPORT BEFORE THEM [iT SEEMS OFTEN SO] WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE GREATER PICTURE. I SEE SOME ON THE FORUM WHO ONLY HURL NEGATIVE, DISRUPTIVE AND INVECTIVE AND THEY SEEM TO REMAIN. WHEN A NORMAL POSTER RESPONDS TO THEIR ACTIVITIES THEY OFTEN GET THREATENED BY THE IMMODERATORS.

SO GROUP YOU GO FIND OUT ABOUT PLUMLEE YOURSELVES.

Apparently your message above is primarily about your concern that the previous posts were on the Plumlee thread and that it was being disrupted due to this. Fair enough. I have moved them to the moderation section of the Forum.

With regards to nothing being done, I respectfully disagree. I tried sending you some PM's as a response to the action I have taken based on your numerous reports, however, your inbox was too full. Sorry.

I don't need to analyze any groups of threads or dozens of posts to see what moderation action I ought to undertake, typically I look at one post at a time to determine if it is ok, or if it is in violation of Forum rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was an example of the moderation system working.

Two complaints were made about the posts, so there was concern about them. Three moderators agreed that there might be cause for concern. The posts were made invisible (not deleted, not edited) and the matter was referred to higher authority - John Simkin.

John reviewed the matter, and decided that no action was required and no Forum rules were being broken. The posts were made visible again.

All parties had their views taken into account, and a decision was made - in Peter's favour.

End of story. This took about 9 hours; not bad considering the different time zones and the need to have John involve himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, I think you ought to clarify that I never sent you any message with any obscene language. This may be hard to believe, but to the best of my memory, I have never used a vulgarity or a swear word in my entire life. Nor would I ever celebrate the death of your dog or anyone's pet for that matter. I am a very big dog lover and I as well know the pain of losing a pet to whom you are attached. It happened to me several years ago.

I do object that you would stoop so low as to subject me to public humiliation over a great moral failing I had over ten years ago for which I paid what is I guess the ultimate penalty a lawyer can do and that I struggle with almost every day. I would never publicize anyone else's sins, errors, whatever, regardless of how much I disagreed with their politics.

I do not understand how you think I am misrepresenting what happened to you with R.R. Is it the amount of money you paid him? I don't want to misrepresent even unwittingly the very unfortunate thing that happened to you and as I said in another thread in no way does that incident indicate anything bad about your moral character. So perhaps you could clarify what I said that you thought was in error.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, I greatly appreciate your clarification that it was not me who sent you a PM containing obscenities.

In the Plumlee thread, I accepted your word that Dr Wecht had not warned you about Russell and that you only gave him a few thousand dollars. But does falling for Russell say something about your abilities as a researcher? Well, had you researched his background at all? I gather you must admit that he told you lies that you thought were the truth. And without knowing the full story, I suspect I might not have fallen for it because it probably did not "ring true", any more than does Plumlee's story about his computer being stolen.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can certainly understand frustration. But there are things here that I do not understand. Perhaps I can be enlightened, were someone to take the time.

It would seem to me, (this does not include namecalling) if a position is presented, that it is good to have a foil. When research is being done,if objections are given,these can be critical to thinking or rethinking that which we perceive as being true, or tending to be true. That someone is asking questions is very good, for it allows us to experience concepts which we had not previously taken into account. It solidifies that which we argued, or causes us to redefine our position.

However, it seems that constructive argument may not be a noble thing for some. We have to factor in the human clause, and it is this that is creating this problem.

Perhaps would be better for both parties not to join in any discussion together. If this solves the problem, then by all means....While it does not allow those posters, who disagree with each other so much that it becomes personal, to voice their opinions on certain issues, it does allow them benefit of not having to deal with each other.

Now, some may say that this is not true debate(not posting for personal reasons), and I agree. But the debates are not sterile. Many times they are more fluid because of the emotions involved.

Where it becomes vague to me is when others are brought in and blamed.(Folks, you had to know this was coming.) It becomes the fault of the (im)moderators, who get blamed because of the failure of another member to act properly. Moderators are supposed to be omnipresent, and omniscient, and we are neither. Many times we are not aware of any problems in other areas. We spend time here for study. Each of us is interested in different things, and we may not see any problems. That is why we ask anyone to report posts---because we may not have seen them.

When a report is sent, we begin sending personal messages to each other for ideas on actions to take, if it is necessary.(This is where Evan's "9 hours" came from)

One of the drawbacks is that at times we get publicly flogged under the guise that one of the parties was wronged. The old adage "d***ed if you do and d***ed if you don't" should be the Moderator's Motto (complete with asterisks)

I would just like all of you to consider our position. We can only do so much, and recommend so much. We are trying to be as fair as we can.

Kathy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently some members have engaged in posting excessive amounts of off-topic posts. The Forum rules (rule (vi)) indicate that posts should be on topic.

Rule quoted below for reference.

(vi) Make sure your postings are relevant to the thread. Please start another thread if your comments do not belong to any existing threads.

I recommend that members who fail to follow this rule repeatedly will be issued a 10% increase in their warning level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On the 12th November I posted a message about the behaviour of members.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2224

This in itself has been taken over by personal bickering. I have therefore decided to make a new statement about the aims and objectives of this forum and to stress the kind of behaviour that we expect from members.

JFK Forum

The main objective of this forum is to bring together researchers into the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is hoped that this forum will enable researchers to share information they have acquired about the case. In this way, the forum will become a major way of communicating information about the assassination to the wider community (we have a far larger number reading the forum than those posting information).

Rules of the JFK Forum

(i) All members have to provide a biography. A link to this biography should be added to their signature (see below for instructions how to do this).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1471

(ii) All members should use a photograph of themselves as an avatar (see below for instructions how to do this). If you still find you have problems with this please email me and I will help you with this.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1861

(iii) Wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make. This will help those carrying out academic research into this area.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

(v) Members should take care over the accuracy of their postings. This includes spellings, capital letters, etc. This is important as the forum is read by young students and therefore we should not be setting them a bad example. I would suggest you write initially in a word processing program that automatically checks spellings, etc. The finished work can then be copied and posted into the forum.

(vi) Make sure your postings are relevant to the thread. Please start another thread if your comments do not belong to any existing threads.

(vii) When you start a thread please make sure it is relevant to the events surrounding the assassination of JFK. We have other areas of the forum where you can post about Politics, History, Mass Media, Sociology, etc.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=idx

(viii) Members should use the quote function of the forum when replying to people’s posts. To do this click the REPLY button. Pressing this button will allow you to reply to a topic, and have the text from a particular reply quoted in your own reply. This can be edited so that only the relevant passage is included. If you want to reply to several postings, copy and paste the relevant comments into your own answer. To make this clear use the colour options to highlight what someone else is saying. Type in the name of the person after the quotation.

(ix) It helps the reader if the text of your posts goes right across the page. If you find this has not happened, use the EDIT button to make sure it does. I do this for you whenever I can but I find it very time-consuming so I would prefer it if you did it yourself.

(x) There is no need to add your own name to postings. The forum software does this automatically.

Please feel free to add your comments about these rules. I welcome suggestions about other rules we might need. However, do not use this thread to reopen disputes with other members. If you do, they will be deleted.

;(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word "xxxx" is banned from use on the forum.

note: (What about inferring or implying one is a xxxx?) (What about respect toward forum members reguardless of their views.... name calling at the likes?)

John what about innuendo references that a member is a xxxx without saying it but inferring that the person is not truthful?. Also "Cherry Picking" a document to use only the parts that benefit the attacker as to his views and attempting for personal reasons to falsely discredit the source of the information or poster? How about cluttering the thread for the purpose of stopping the flow of information?This is just my thoughts... It seems when I post I am attacked with "cattie remarks" and implied I am a xxxx..... I do not expect anything to be done about any of this except for me to get chastise for even bringing it up... I am not the only one who feels this way... a little respect for all and their information they might have would go a long way in exchanging information pro and con about what happened that day in Dallas.

Example the "Declassified Military Files" Post..., happens to be one of many postings which have been "hi-jacked for whatever reasons....

WHY has so many good researchers left this forum or no longer post? I do not expect a respond.

Edited by William Plumlee
Link to post
Share on other sites

I told you that my friend the respected member was not dead ...

did I not?

< i.e., Tosh Plumlee >

Edited by Shanet Clark
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Bill,

I think you raise an important issue about moderation and our rules. Therefore I'd like to address it briefly, despite the fact that this discussion is absolutely off-topic.

I agree that moderators can't work in a way which would allow them to deal with each type of case in a similar way. The limitations we moderators experience in this field is due to technical-, time- and time zone constraints. Besides visits to this Forum are a hobby for me, not a full time job.

I think there should be a clearer set of policies and rules for example for penalties and moderation measures. These more detailed rules would enable less of the individual judgement based calls, which you are so unhappy with.

The specific case you brought up and debated with Miles on a different thread (I think it was a different thread), had to do with my decision not to limit another members (Miles') analysis and criticism of your research. I wanted to allow it, not because I for some reason want to show favoritism towards Miles, but because healthy debate does include - and should include - critical thinking & questioning of the work of others.

The Forum rule no. 4 and the sentence "Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers." does not mean one member should not be allowed to be critical of another's research, especially if the opposing claim is supported by other research or material supporting this opposing view.

I mean, what is the point of having a JFK assassination debate forum, if the work of fellow members should not be critically analysed or debated? The key here is to debate according to the Forum rules, and to avoid the personal attacks which are present here far too often. I have done and will continue to do my best to weed it out.

If you or anyone else has any good ideas on how to improve the Forum rules or moderation in general, or would like to continue this discussion, please do it on this thread.

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

As you will know, it is a condition of membership that members post photographs as avatars. There are still some members who still have not done this. As a result, others have removed their photographs because they refuse to abide by rules ignored by others. I have decided that from Monday, I will place all members who refuse to abide by this rule on moderation. Until they add their photograph their posts will not be allowed through.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner
As you will know, it is a condition of membership that members post photographs as avatars. There are still some members who still have not done this. As a result, others have removed their photographs because they refuse to abide by rules ignored by others. I have decided that from Monday, I will place all members who refuse to abide by this rule on moderation. Until they add their photograph their posts will not be allowed through.

John, should this be pinned for a couple of days?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...