Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

I would like to know if David Von Pain or David Reitze have been members here and if they were put on moderation or banned and if so why?

DVP is saying he can no longer post here because he was promoting the truth.

It seems they have never been members here, so Mr Von Pein's claim that he can no longer post here because he was promoting the truth is obviously wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 369
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would like to know if David Von Pain or David Reitze have been members here and if they were put on moderation or banned and if so why?

DVP is saying he can no longer post here because he was promoting the truth.

It seems they have never been members here, so Mr Von Pein's claim that he can no longer post here because he was promoting the truth is obviously wrong.

Well someone posted a thread that DVP had contributed to on Ed Forum JFK Ass Debate so he was a member here at one time, and here's what they say about it:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/bcfee2a952c9d95e

What was the violation that led to DVP's exit, and will he be allowed back in if there is a team debate with him, McAdams and Retize on one side?

>BK: you can join up and put a photo of yourself up on Ed Forum and

> tell everybody who you are and then attack my thinking on some of them

> there, but you won't, will ya?

I wouldn`t last there anyway, so why bother? They threw DVP out after 4

days, and it had a lot more to do with the ideas he was expressing than

the phony photo issue they used to oust him. Plenty of people have no

photo or unrecognizable photos there, and it wasn`t an issue until DVP

started embarrassing some of the retards there by actually bringing up the

evidence.

> You like being under the protective

> umbrella of John McAdams.

You seem to want to go where you can have Simkin`s protection. But we

can take our disputes to a neutral site like alt.conspiracy.jfk if you

like. Youl like me a lot less there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a Forum requirement that all members have a link to their bio in the signature portion of their posts. Here's how to set that up.

Go to the Introduce Yourself board and start a new thread with your name as your title.

In the bio you can put as much or as little as you like, but normally people give a little background into their particular interests here (just 9-11, just JFK, interest in all the forms that a conspiracy may take, etc) and any particular skills they might have (interest in forensics, CPA, 15 years as a consulting engineers, etc). As the board name suggest, it's about introducing yourself.

If you feel happy to do so, you can also just add some personal information, such as where you come from, married or not, etc - stuff you'd put in a normal bio. Remember though - the bio is public, so do NOT put in anything you want to keep private.

After you have posted your bio, copy a link to it. You can do this by going to the number in the top right-hand corner of the post (e.g. #1), and using the right-click command on your mouse, select Copy Link Location (for Firefox) or Copy Shortcut (for IE).

Next, go to your personal profile settings by clicking on your name in the top right-hand section of the Forum. A list of options will appear.

Select My Settings.

On the page that appears, there will be some tabs across the top under MY OPTIONS and a list of menu items down the left of the page. From the top row, select Profile.

The list of menu items on the left will have changed, and one will be Change Signature. Select that.

An edit box will appear. This is where you place the link to your bio and anything else you'd like to add to your bio like. The most common way to add your bio is to write the word 'Biography', highlight it, select add link from the top of the edit box (that's the icon at top, to the right of the smiley face, that looks like a little chain link). Paste the address to your bio (which you copied in the previous steps) in there and click on Insert Link.

When finished, select Save Changes and you're done!

BTW, you should also have a look around the various settings there, so you can customise aspects of the board to your liking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

The Forum rules have been revised; please read them.

Thank you.

The Spirit of the Law

The purpose of all of these rules is to ensure that this forum remains a law-abiding, civil, and congenial place to engage in discussion. That a post complies with that spirit is a greater consideration than whether it can be defended as being within the rules.

Civility and Decorum

Politeness is paramount. Of course, we expect to have spirited debates! That's fine, as long as the people involved extend one another basic respect. Disagreements are inevitable, but even in those situations you must still be civil.

Members are forbidden from questioning the motives of posters, nor should members research abilities be questioned.

At no time may a forum member call another forum member a xxxx, nor accuse them of posting / telling lies. Infraction of this rule will result in the immediate deletion of the offending post and the immediate moderation of the offending poster. The duration of moderation (or possible expulsion of the member) will be determined by consensus amongst moderators and / or administrators.

Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free to dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks. Be mindful and respectful of others' feelings. If you feel that someone has crossed the line and insulted you, please contact one of the moderators, preferably via the reporting mechanism described here, or by PM or email. Don't write scathing posts in the forum to try and humiliate people publicly.

If these guidelines are not followed, the administrators/moderators will take appropriate action, so please behave accordingly.

Language

No cursing. What is defined as cursing is determined by the best judgment of the moderators and may be amended by moderator or admin consensus. No cursing goes along with being polite. This website is read by school children and young adults - consider that at all time and let it be a guide for you. Attempts to express bad words or phrases in messages or screen names, by any means such as (but not limited to): replacing key letters with different characters, misspellings homonyms, sound-alikes, abbreviations, or any other trick obvious enough to be noticed by a moderator will not be tolerated. Same goes with adult topics -- talk about them somewhere else. If you do need to post something risqué, stick with acceptable terminology. Contact a moderator or administrator if you have any doubts.

Avatars and biographies

All members have to provide a biography. A link to this biography should be added to their signature

All members should use a photograph of themselves as an avatar. If you find you have problems with this please contact a moderator and they will help you with this.

References

Wherever possible - especially if an issue or point being made is being disputed - members should attempt to give references or document source material. This will provide assistance to those carry out academic research into the subject matter.

Copyright

Be cautious when posting copyrighted material here. Post small, relevant quotes or sections, and include the URL to the source. Alternatively, if you want to reference material somewhere else on the web, give a brief summary and link to the rest. People can go take a look at what you're talking about and then return to discuss it further. Posting copyrighted material wholesale without attribution or linking to the source can open the Forum to legal action.

Privacy Issues

Posting private information about forum users that is not available otherwise publicly will not be tolerated. Do not post private email you have gained access to without the express permission of the sender. There are legal and copyright reasons for this, not to mention that doing so is very impolite. The same caveat applies to private messages, whether they're from this forum or anywhere else. If you receive rude or abusive private messages on this forum, you can report them via the same mechanism as inappropriate posts.

However, private messages to a moderator about forum administration issues are an exception to this rule. These may be shared with other moderators (but only with other moderators) unless you have a prior agreement with the moderator not to do so. To put it another way, think of the moderator team as a single entity. A PM to one is a PM to all, at least when it comes to official business.

Note that if you do report a private message that you consider inappropriate, you should provide background information regarding any private discussions that preceded that message, since the moderators (unlike with public message posts) cannot establish context without such information. Members who report inappropriate messages without revealing that they sent messages that might have goaded the sender into writing such a message will be dealt with severely.

Advertising, Solicitation, and Spam

Using the forum to promote your own website, blog or forum is quite acceptable but it is not acceptable to promote nor to sell merchandise (except for scholarly works such as books or documentary videos, etc). These offenses will result in the deletion of the offending posts.

Do not submit threads/posts containing identical text in multiple forum categories; that's considered spamming the board, and likewise will be dealt with accordingly.

If you have any doubts that it may break one of these rules, contact a moderator or administrator first.

Second & Third Party Posting

Do not post on behalf of other people. In other words, if someone you know has something to say relevant to the discussion in a thread, have them register and post it. Think of them as a copyrighted source: you can quote them in short amounts, but if there is something substantial they want to add, they must do it themselves. The exception to this is if new memberships are temporarily suspended and you have confirmed with the administrators that the third party posting is acceptable. Posting on behalf of a moderated, suspended or banned member is strictly forbidden.

Hotlinking and large images

Try to avoid putting in links to images directly from someone elses website. This can add a lot to their bandwidth, and then the host has to pay for it. In other words, if you see an image you like on another site, put in a link to that site, but don't use the tags so the image loads into your post from their site directly unless you believe it is central to a post you are making. If you really want an image in your post, the preferred option is to put the image in a public site someplace (e.g. Photobucket) and link to it from there. One exception would be from government sites, large corporate sites or universities, where bandwidth is not such an issue. If you own the image, then you can upload it to the board yourself.

Additionally, don't embed a huge image (meaning an image that's over 100k or extends beyond the right-hand edge of a typical display) inline using the tag but link to it instead. We still have dialup users and others with limited bandwidth for whom downloading a large image would be a significant annoyance.

If you have images which may be considered offensive by some but you feel they are central to an argument or issue you are making, the Forum has a website which can be used to host such restricted images. contact a moderator for further information.

"Hit & Run"

The technique of posting a single provocative statement (or, commonly, a URL to a controversial website) and then never posting again in that thread is greatly frowned upon. This is only a step above trolling. Barely.

Editing & Revisionism

Edit your posts with care. There's no problem with editing a post later to change the tone or to correct spelling and the like. But changing content is not allowed! This is a slippery path that can be seen as revisionism. Also, when quoting other posters, trimming down the text to brief snippets to address something in particular is encouraged, but do not misquote others or alter their content to suggest they've stated things which they haven't.

Alternative Concepts

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. If you do not wish your credibility to be questioned, you should be prepared to defend your arguments. Direct questions should be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Those that are strong will survive, and be stronger for the process.

Disruptive Behavior

The moderators and administrators reserve the right to take action against a poster who is disrupting the normal flow of the board. This includes violations listed in the other rules (trolling, use of ad hominems, posting copyrighted materials, etc.), but may also include behavior we have not yet foreseen. Since this rule is perforce general, we will attempt to correct the problem by warning the violator (via PM, email, or posting in the thread) and giving him/her a chance to explain his/her behavior, and we will take further action only if proven necessary.

Reporting Bad Posts

If you feel a post breaks one of these rules, please report it by clicking the 'report' button. Do not talk about bad posts, start threads complaining about posts or anything else you consider to be inappropriate user behavior in the forum itself nor suggest, speculate on, or threaten what the moderator response should be. All reported posts are reviewed by moderators or administrators, and are treated very seriously (so do not report frivolously). If you have concerns, please PM a moderator or administrator.

Moderator Actions

If there is a rule violation, then a moderator will take action they believe is required. This may include: the deletion of a word or phrase (if it breaks the rules), the removal of an entire post (if it is beyond redemption, or if it's a spam, etc.), the merging of a new thread with an existing one on the same topic, the closing of a thread if it wanders too far off-topic or gets too heated, a gentle warning to a user or users, a not-so-gentle-warning, placing a member on moderation and as a last resort, the banning of a user. This banning may be temporary or permanent, as outlined above. Banning of a member will only be taken by collective collaboration of moderators and at least one administrator. If a moderator gives you advice, we recommend you to heed it.

If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. If it's a post by a moderator that you disagree with, you can report the post using the usual mechanism. We will review the case and take action as needed. Complaints can be made in the relevant complaints thread (if one exists) if required but do not start thread complaining about the actions taken about a moderator. Such threads will be deleted without warning.

Rule Additions & Revisions

The administrators reserve the right to modify existing rules and/or add additional rules as they see fit. In many ways, this board is like a living thing, subject to change. Situations sometimes arise which cannot be anticipated, and thus, rules must be added to accommodate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan and all,

In the hope that the rules are extending the life of these valuable and unique spots on the internet; Spartacus/The Education Forum, I support

your intent and goals by having and communicating these rules, but I have two points to add.

In the U.S., it may not be in good form, but it is well settled by those on opposing sides of the political spectrum that emails are "fair game"

after they are sent. If the information on these two links does not sway you, or you are trying to tailor the rule to fit broadly across the English

speaking world, I understand that you cannot exempt only U.S. residents from your email rule' guideline.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/20/goldberg/index.html

(Near the Bottom.)

and:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/06/can-a-listserv-be-off-the-record/58765/

If the rule stands, can we agree to exempt the contents of all email from government employees originating from any government email address? I have seen examples offered from journalists having to do with U.S. military spokespersons denying communicating what was proved they had included in their emails, complete with originating verfying IP info and email addresses.

With phot storing and serving sites such as flickr.com and photobucket freely available, and considering that this forum is a historical research

repository because of the contents included in the posts of the members, will you exempt the posting of photo and film images originating from

these image serving sites? Recently I searched this forum for the highest quality Altgens print available with the entrance the the TSBF in the background, and I was very disappointed to see scores of references to images in the txt of posts where the images are no longer displayed.

The majority of pre-2008 images, are gone, based on my anecdotal observations. I'm confident that I speak for most here when I write that I intend

for all of the material in my posts to be available here for a long time. I use a photo storage and serving site to upload all of the images I've

posted since March of 2009 and the images tend to continue to display in my older posts.

Just do a google search of the terms "education forum" and altgens and you'll get a quick sense of what has been lost in older posts in many topics.

Some of the lost images were of text documents. Third party hosting sites for photos like Flickr are so ubiquitous now, and the storage space offered for photo uploads directly theough the forum is inadequate, as it should be to limit bandwidth and the speed of loading pages.

Offering this small storgage space to members to post images from actually guarantees that these images will be fleeting inside the posts that

display them. Why not consider ending the ability to post from on-forum storage while grandfathering what is already stored as long as

you can justify doing that? We can help any member relying on that service to migrate over to one of the large capacity image storage and serving

sites, and extend the life of eveything displayed in our posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

As of today all moderators have been instructed to set all posts in violation of Forum rules as invisible.

Breaking forum rules, includes posts with clear personal attacks, cursing etc.

If your post becomes suddenly invisible, it is because your post does not comply with Forum rules. Normally such posts will not be set to visible again.

The Education Forum rules are available on the Forum for all to see.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9792

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

On behalf of the Moderators

Antti Hynonen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

It was stated elsewhere that moderators are supposed to make note of the posts they edit, delete or make invisible this is not happening. I know of two sets of posts involving other members and me that disappeared without notice. As for the latest case I would prefer if Fetzer's attack and my reply were to reappear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

I set up a photobucket account for Forum use. There is a post somewhere about it; I'll see if I can find it.

The contents of e-mails can be problematic, though I have no personal objection to the contents being displayed. I was always taught: don't put anything in an e-mail that you wouldn't want made public.

Government / military e-mails are different. In Australia they are covered by the Crimes Act. At the bottom of all ADF e-mails is the warning:

IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email.

Disclosure of the contents by a government official (or ex-official) without official sanction is, in Australia, a crime.Here is Section 70 of the Crimes Act.

CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 70

Disclosure of information by Commonwealth officers

(1) A person who, being a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, except to some person to whom he or she is authorized to publish or communicate it, any fact or document which comes to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of being a Commonwealth officer, and which it is his or her duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who, having been a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, without lawful authority or excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon him or her), any fact or document which came to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of having been a Commonwealth officer, and which, at the time when he or she ceased to be a Commonwealth officer, it was his or her duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

This does not affect civilians, but any public servant is subject to the section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

On the Moderators' thread Tom wrote:

Made most recent post on thread titled, The "other" film? invisible.:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17595&pid=226697&st=105entry226697

In the future, please post your request for a response from another member without adding an accusatory barb. You may intend for this addition to merely be a benign challenge, so please word it as if that is all it is.

Tom, we all have our biases and I think you have let yours effect your judgment, compare your action in this case with ones where members posted obscene language. You did not make the posts invisible or even edit out the ‘four-letter word’ but rather made posts on the threads asking the authors to edit their posts. Why not apply the same solution in my case or merely edit out the offending part? And in Greg’s 1st response to my question he was very hostile calling my question a “pathetic, ill advised, distracting, no-count, out of context, ruminating, blovatious…meandering, mindless inquiry” and told me to “Go piss up a rope” but apparently you did not think that warranted admonition, editing or being made invisible.

No member is obligated to post a reply. If you disagree, report a post and request a moderator review. A rare set of circumstances might arise where moderators agree that you are due a response from another member.

I think most members would not support a compulsory posting policy, as routine practice.

False dichotomy fallacy, while I agree there shouldn’t be a rule obliging a member to answer a question, I don’t see how the rule prohibit one member asking another to elaborate on theirs claims especially in light of the forums rules. For example:

- The “Revised Forum Rules” stipulate, “Wherever possible - especially if an issue or point being made is being disputed - members should attempt to give references or document source material. This will provide assistance to those carry out academic research into the subject matter” - asking someone to explain the circumstances in which they claim to have witnessed something is not much different from asking them to “give references”, especially since the revised rules require compliance with “The Spirit of the Law”

- The rules also prohibit “posting a single provocative statement (or, commonly, a URL to a controversial website) and then never posting again in that thread” how different is that from posting a claim regarding “an issue or point [that] is being disputed” and “never” elaborating “in that thread”?

In other words Greg’s refusal to reply is a violation of “the spirit” if not the letter of the rules, thus he is not compelled to answer but I am with in my rights in asking.

Also note that the "revised" rules have yet to be posted in this section.

As for the thread about Jim DiEugenio which you made invisible, he clearly made a false claim about Todd and he refused to admit error, when shown to wrong. I know from personal experience he is in the habit of criticizing or mocking other members based on his own mischaracterization of their claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Moderators' thread Tom wrote:

Made most recent post on thread titled, The "other" film? invisible.:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17595&pid=226697&st=105entry226697

In the future, please post your request for a response from another member without adding an accusatory barb. You may intend for this addition to merely be a benign challenge, so please word it as if that is all it is.

Tom, we all have our biases and I think you have let yours effect your judgment, compare your action in this case with ones where members posted obscene language. You did not make the posts invisible or even edit out the ‘four-letter word’ but rather made posts on the threads asking the authors to edit their posts. Why not apply the same solution in my case or merely edit out the offending part? And in Greg’s 1st response to my question he was very hostile calling my question a “pathetic, ill advised, distracting, no-count, out of context, ruminating, blovatious…meandering, mindless inquiry” and told me to “Go piss up a rope” but apparently you did not think that warranted admonition, editing or being made invisible.

No member is obligated to post a reply. If you disagree, report a post and request a moderator review. A rare set of circumstances might arise where moderators agree that you are due a response from another member.

I think most members would not support a compulsory posting policy, as routine practice.

False dichotomy fallacy, while I agree there shouldn’t be a rule obliging a member to answer a question, I don’t see how the rule prohibit one member asking another to elaborate on theirs claims especially in light of the forums rules. For example:

- The “Revised Forum Rules” stipulate, “Wherever possible - especially if an issue or point being made is being disputed - members should attempt to give references or document source material. This will provide assistance to those carry out academic research into the subject matter” - asking someone to explain the circumstances in which they claim to have witnessed something is not much different from asking them to “give references”, especially since the revised rules require compliance with “The Spirit of the Law”

- The rules also prohibit “posting a single provocative statement (or, commonly, a URL to a controversial website) and then never posting again in that thread” how different is that from posting a claim regarding “an issue or point [that] is being disputed” and “never” elaborating “in that thread”?

In other words Greg’s refusal to reply is a violation of “the spirit” if not the letter of the rules, thus he is not compelled to answer but I am with in my rights in asking.

Also note that the "revised" rules have yet to be posted in this section.

As for the thread about Jim DiEugenio which you made invisible, he clearly made a false claim about Todd and he refused to admit error, when shown to wrong. I know from personal experience he is in the habit of criticizing or mocking other members based on his own mischaracterization of their claims.

ah, come on... in about 25 years the WCR will make a resurgence, till that time continue to give it your best shot, Len. (pssst, many of my posts are invisible, that's the thanks you get when you're one of the original Ed Forum invitees)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...