The Playground

Free the Dew

#BREAKING: NEW PICTURE OF IH OPERATIVES LEAKED BY THE CUSTOMER

Unless I am missing something. All the locks are missing from the recent banning massacre. So both the Dew and Wyttenbach and of course sifferkoll are now able to post.

I would ask them to consider posting again albeit more thoughtfully.

Only one name is missing from this list who could contribute more than most but hey can't due to some non existent policy of permabans.... Can't have everything

Quote from Rigel

I would ask them to consider posting again albeit more thoughtfully.

If you were to ban me I wouldn't think of coming back. I doubt you will see any of those people again.

Dear MODERATORS and everyone here.

This is a community-- not what you or I or what the originator/founder thinks. It is collective and volatile and alas as such ==== may need to be moderated but ALWAYS this is either due to language or content. BUT FORSURE NOT DISAGREEMENTS OR BIAS NOR DIFFERENT IDEAS! . Banning is a violation of rules that are set down in advance. Not something that is either arbitrary or capricious. Not one persons 'moods' should set the tone. There are no rules that have been violated. I really really do not understand what has been violated.

How about defining some very simple rules and codifying them elsewhere and point to them when needed?

1. Do not be an ass or DOXX

2. Don't bring religion sexual orientation or race into a conversation about LENR

3. Each and everyone of us needs to be able to laugh at a joke at our expense, maybe it is an indirect way of telling someone something they need to hear.

This place has a unique world wise audience and we need to keep it this way.

/playground

Rigel, the mods reserve the right to promptly ban people who are a nuisance here. No one who is polite, who is participating in good faith, and who responds to moderator requests is in the slightest danger of being banned, even temporarily, regardless of his or her views on controversial topics relating to LENR. Problem cases are considered individually, on a case by case basis. In all but the most egregious cases there is a process of deliberation among the mods beforehand, and a series of warnings are usually given. Those who have been banned will not have been surprised about it. And several of the members who were recently temporarily banned will not be missed if they do not return, and if they do return they will be in danger of being permanently banned if they are not on their best behavior.

Please consider codifying it .This eye 4 eye stuff is not professional. This smacks of anger not reflectance. The only words I have seen here that have brought me to anger are pests that shut conversation down and chase contributors away .

Quote from Bob

Frank made it clear to me that the governing decision he uses is if one believes Rossi and if posts made will argue that fact.

There is a vaguely similar rule at Vortex-L, my crazy, quirky, beloved free energy alma mater, and the alma mater of several others here:

Quote from http://amasci.com/weird/wvort.html

The Vortex-L list was originally created for discussions of professional research into fluid vortex/cavitation devices which exhibit anomalous energy effects (ie: the inventions of Schaeffer, Huffman, Griggs, and Potapov among others.) Currently it has evolved into a discussion on "taboo" physics reports and research. SKEPTICS BEWARE, the topics wander from Cold Fusion, to reports of excess energy in Free Energy devices, gravity generation and detection, reports of theoretically impossible phenomena, and all sorts of supposedly crackpot claims. Before you subscribe, please see the rules below. This is a public, lightly- moderated smartlist list. ...

2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is banned. Debunking or "Pathological Skepticism" is banned (see the link.) Vortex-L is a snark-free zone. The tone here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate. Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and Skeptic/debunkers may as well leave in disgust. But if your mind is open and you wish to test "crazy" claims rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away, hop on board!

While I have really enjoyed Vortex, the rule against debunking, specifically (and not the other things), gradually got to me. I am very happy that debunkers and skeptics are tolerated here, even if I would put myself in the optimistic camp when it comes to LENR. Let there be a rigorous battle of facts and arguments. (But not of personalities.)

(Replying here so as not to further sidetrack the conversation in the Rossi v. Darden thread.)

Just a rule to be nice and respectful would be enough.

Moderators can interpret that however they want, so far they've done an OK job and I support them.

Quote from Eric Walker

Rigel, the mods reserve the right to promptly ban people who are a nuisance here. No one who is polite, who is participating in good faith, and who responds to moderator requests is in the slightest danger of being banned, even temporarily, regardless of his or her views on controversial topics relating to LENR. Problem cases are considered individually, on a case by case basis. In all but the most egregious cases there is a process of deliberation among the mods beforehand, and a series of warnings are usually given. Those who have been banned will not have been surprised about it. And several of the members who were recently temporarily banned will not be missed if they do not return, and if they do return they will be in danger of being permanently banned if they are not on their best behavior.

I find the permanent banning of Abd a bit surprising.

He contributes good research, analysis, and is often wise.

He is also narcissistic, long-winded, and inclined to value his opinion above others. As are many of us (me especially).

His ideas about how forums should be run seem to me to be tendentious but not stupid. It is weird that he gets into such arguments with mods. From my POV - it is hard work, I don't want to do it, I am grateful that others do it. That includes moderators such as Rends and Alan whose views on some issues I think heavily biased. And while I sometimes don't agree with the way others moderate I'm in no position to criticise without being willing to do the hard work.

Still - I'd like to think that Abd's isolation was his inability to integrate rather than any policy of LF. I'm therefore surprised at a perma-ban for anyone carrying such positives.

On another issue. Transparency is a great good. One way to make moderation more supported is to openly publish all warnings with the relevant posts. This helps everyone calibrate things, whereas a private history of warning and breech is just not understood and banning then seen as disproportionate.

Don't worry, he's passed the filibustering relay to you and you're doing a flawless job

Mark my words: this forum will be studied for years as a textbook case in social engineering and astroturfing

Quote from Roger

Mark my words: this forum will be studied for years as a textbook case in social engineering and astroturfing

My username is relevant. Please include me in the screencap!

I doubt there is much or any astroturfing in the Rossi v. Darden thread (only one person comes readily to mind as a possibility). As has been repeatedly pointed out, one would have to be a little off to pay someone to post here, for it will bring very little return on their investment. The most salient feature of that thread, viewed after the fact, will likely be the naivety of wishful people, who will ignore any information that conflicts with what they want to be true.

Question to those that think there is significant manipulation going on in this forum: Why? I can't really see how IH would benefit from controlling the conversation on a fringe discussion board.

Sorry, I've been too much focused on alternative facts. There's really no point to use astroturfing to try and prevent a disruptive technology to appear on the market, from the point of view of cartels who already profit from the market this disruptive technology might appear on.
Also, it boggles the mind why a company would try to influence, through social engineering, the outcome of a justice decision about whether or not they can profit from this disruptive IP worth trillions

It's like on Monsanto's facebook page. All those people defending this company and singing its praises, are all real civilian with real identities, genuine family photographs, etc...

Nobody ever lies on the Internet, especially when there are enormous financial interests at stake!

There is little chance IH will have any luck influencing a federal jury by paying someone to astroturf here. Any members of a jury panel from which jurors are being selected at the start of the trial will be thrown out if they have followed this case or if they have any opinion whatsoever. And jurors that are selected will be instructed not to do research on the case. I'm going to wager that if they ignore the instructions they'll either be removed from the jury and replaced by an alternate, or there will be a mistrial.

The only person that readily comes to mind when considering possible astroturfers in the Rossi thread writes there to support a viewpoint that I assume you would view favorably.