JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points

[Antti Hynonen]

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.

[Evan Burton]

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.

[Tim Gratz]

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.

[Tim Gratz]

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 December 7, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Antti Hynonen]

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.

[William Plumlee]

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 January 29, 2008 by William Plumlee

[Shanet Clark]

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

did I not?

< i.e., Tosh Plumlee >

Edited February 7, 2008 by Shanet Clark

[Antti Hynonen]

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!

[John Simkin]

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.

[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?

[John Simkin]

One of the rules of the Forum is that members add their photograph as an avatar? It helps to humanize communications. Starting from this week, postings without a suitable avatar will be made invisible and the member will be placed on moderation until they abide by the rules.

The photograph should be a maximum of 64 pixels high.

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.

johnsimkin1945@hotmail.com

[Jack White]

I suggest this be amended to say IDENTIFIABLE FACIAL PHOTO. This would

rule out a distant photo of a man on a motorcycle or strolling the beach, or any

photo in which the face is not large and well lighted. A face in shadow or

silhouette is not suitable.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

I suggest this be amended to say IDENTIFIABLE FACIAL PHOTO. This would

rule out a distant photo of a man on a motorcycle or strolling the beach, or any

photo in which the face is not large and well lighted. A face in shadow or

silhouette is not suitable.

Jack

I agree with Jack on this one ... seems to make sense. Of course there might need to be a stipulation that if a member offers a recognizable photo of themselves that they are then not said to be a CIA plant and need to be fingerprinted next just to be sure its really them. (smile~)

How recent the photo is may be another factor to consider for a recognizable baby photo of someone may not be of much help in knowing if it is really a fellow researcher ... of course what is? The honor system may be the only option here.

Bill

[John Dolva]

QUOTE

Duncan MacRae Posted Today, 11:38 AM

Duncan, you know very well that resorting to personal insults will not be permitted on this Forum. Your comment reagrding Bill Miller's and Robert Groden's physical appearance will not be tolerated.

Antti Hynonen

...........

I feel I must openly protest at what I feel is unfair and biased moderation being directed towards me.

This is the second time that Antti has warned me over a comment which I have made about Bill Miller.

I have absolutely no objection to Bill Millers comments about me and do not request that they be removed..........BUT

I want to know why Bill Miller's repetative comments about me being a dunce, ie, continually calling me Dunce-can instead of Duncan, a boob, comments about the length of my hair, insinuating that I am having a relationship with Miles Skull etc are alway allowed to remain on the boards, while I get warnings and my comments are removed. Is he a special case?

If Antti is applying these moderation standards to me, they should apply to all, including Bill Miller.

I can not accept that Bill's comments have simply been missed. There are far too many to have been missed, and they are spread evenly over all of the discussions between Bill and myself.

It's simply unfair, but i'm not going to cry over it, I just wanted to make my point known.

Duncan MacRae

______

Duncan,

Moderation activity is mostly a result of filed reports. This means that once a member files a report based on another members' inapproriate post, a mocderator reviews such a post to determine whether the post is indeed violating Forum rules. In this case the post in question was a violation of Forum rules.

Of course at times, moderators will moderate posts without reports, based on their own findings.

Other members are more sensitive to insults than others.

If you feel you have been insulted by other members, please file a report, and I will review the posts as time permits. Otherwise I will assume you are not bothered by any exisiting posts.

By the way, in the pinned threads, there is a thread on moderation. Please use that thread to discuss moderation issues, instead of starting new ones.

Thank you!

_______

I agree it should be shifted here, not because it's not important (IMO), Antti. Could you move it to here...

Duncan, I think you raise some interesting points there. Cutures are so different, aren't they. An offhand colloquialism in one country is a deep insult in another. Ultimately it's the deeper motivation that's important. To some extent these issues must consider such things. On the other hand just as esperanto aims for a universal language, perhaps contemplations on this can result over time with an overall protocol that could be included in a help file or something for new comers to refer to. Maybe more statements publically about what people find attacking, insulting, or offensive can be catalogued, and those who wish to have a civil dialog with someone from a totally different background can always refer to it. An opportunity for community building?

'Quixote', (though I reckon Pancho would be better cause then I could say Viva Villa).

(edit typo)'Q'

Edited February 3, 2009 by John Dolva

[Antti Hynonen]

Several members objected to something I posted on this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...80&start=80

Yet, no one filed a report. Why not?

That is how the system is designed to work. This time we had to rely on other moderators reading this thread and picking up the protests within numerous posts.