The Playground

No joke, I had a vivid and highly memorable dream about Mary last night - I woke up genuinely terrified and relieved to be awake (and thankfully without facial bite marks).

I was debating writing a full account of it, but ultimately it's far too dark and malevolent to recount in public... Proper Nightmare on Elm Street stuff. In fact, now that I mention it, there were some amusing parallels to certain aspects of those films, [Um, nope I was thinking of The Candyman...] however, I still don't think we need that level of insight into my psyche.

Quote from Alan Smith

We do the best we can to allow debate and the presentation of different viewpoints without too much censorship. Not an easy job, and you may have noticed that Mods get it in the neck whatever they do - or don't do

To be honest I'm amazed to see that you and Rends are still moderators on this forum. I guess it would get really too big and obvious if "they" had you removed.

Quote from joshg

But now when people started accusing or implying that people are posting as shills for Rossi: crickets. Such accusations are no problemo when aimed at Rossi. I was simply pointing out the unfair double standard.

I have already explained that there’s a bit of judgment as to where to draw the line, and that the two scenarios you’re discussing are not equivalent. I continue to feel that way, even if you disagree. (1) A person being here at Rossi’s behest (not necessarily a shill) is not an equivalent situation on several levels to someone being paid by APCO to argue things in a certain direction. (2) The suggestion/accusation of someone being here at Rossi’s behest got notice, although it did not quite cross the line to merit interfering in the discussion. This is a moderator judgment that depends upon the context, the previous discussion history and whether things look like they're going to get out of hand.

Quote from joshg

Eric says the double standard makes sense to him, because he doesn't find it plausible that APCO would be astroturfing this forum on IH's behalf.

It is not me applying a double standard, as I explained. There’s a critical difference in the two scenarios you raised, and other considerations besides. It would be a double standard if the two situations were equivalent, which they are not, and if there were no other considerations, which there were.

We aim to make this place welcoming to people who in our estimation are able to further the conversation about the science of LENR. People, for example, who have backgrounds in experimental nuclear physics or chemistry, perhaps who know something about and have participated in peer review and publishing in scientific journals. People who find a lot of merit in the notion that there are APCO shills being paid to post here do not fit the profile of the kind of person we seek to attract. Such people are welcome here if they are polite and don't get too far into the weeds with that stuff. But such people, if strident enough in their complaints, are likely to drive away the kind of people we wish to attract. But the kind of people we’d like to attract might find merit in the notion that some posters here are connected to Rossi somehow.

Quote from joshg

My intuition is that Eric holds this position because he connects the APCO astroturf scenario to the "IH is trying to stall/kill LENR" conspiracy. But in fact, the APCO astroturf scenario makes sense even if you believe IH has the purest intentions and all the nice things that IH defenders say here about them is true. We know that businesses in general routinely hire people to promote their brands and engage in PR on-line. This practice of astroturfing is widespread, widely accepted, admitted and simply cannot be denied as a fact of life and routine modern day business practices.

My feeling that the APCO astroturf scenario is not likely goes beyond the implausibility of the "IH is trying to stall/kill LENR" conspiracy. I pay close attention to forum members and what they post, and I try to get a sense of the personality and motives of each one if I can (admittedly this is not easy). None of the “pro-IH” people strike me as being anything other than ordinary LENR watchers, of the kind I’ve interacted with over a number years. The IH APCO shill scenario is implausible to me because there’s no one that immediately comes to mind who raises suspicions in that connection.

If you ever find concrete, clear evidence in support of the APCO astroturf scenario, far better than the circumstantial evidence Sifferkoll has been able to muster, that will change things.

Quote from joshg

My own bias says this scenario is actually more likely than the one where Rossi--who is notorious for not trusting people--asking (or paying) people to have a go at the forum on his behalf.

Yes.

Quote from joshg

But it doesn't really matter which scenario is more plausible.

It absolutely matters. We are not a forum that blindly applies abstract platonic principles of fairness, whatever the consequences. We are a forum that takes into account concrete context, that seeks to foster a constructive conversation about the science of LENR and that hopes to attract the kind of people who are qualified to advance that inquiry. The plausibility of various scenarios matters very much in how we handle things.

Eric Walker I read your thoughtful reply. And although I disagree with you on this issue, I do have respect for the work that you and Alan Smith and the other moderators do here. I can imagine it isn't easy.

Quote from Alan Smith

Here's a suggestion. You draft a policy, and I will put it to the team. No promises though.

Here is one tenet. No permaban without -> profound swearing involving a birthing family member, or inline porn or doxxing. Else the 3 strikes rule. And a clean slate to all. Just think about it, let time do its magic and heal. It's way past time to 'let bygones be bygones.'

Rigel, I've moved your comment into the Playground thread in order to keep the conversation nominally focused on Rossi v. Darden. (I'm sure you hadn't fully caught up on the thread at that point, so no worries.)

Eric,

I don't know how but you read my mind. I am still trying to catch up, I am still reading. I try to read everything. I just want to bury the hatchet. I am a big believer in keeping the conversation going. But what I said should be considered. I think that you and Alan and others do a great job. And if I disagree I know that you will hear of it (right or wrong). So like others I support everyones efforts. I just want the permaban removed a clean slate installed and bans codified.

That said the Rossi case is moving again.

Sorry, Rigel, the permaban will be continued to be used to get rid of people who are intentionally pests or are otherwise disruptive. It will also be used if necessary in more complex cases as a last resort under extenuating circumstances.

joshg

If you want to ban astroturfers and shills how do you go about that?

Wyttenbach has declared me a shill for the APCO astroturfers on his site.

No evidence just Wyttenbach has a feeling.

So does that mean I should be banned?

If I was to declare that joshg was a shill should joshg be banned?

I honestly agree with Eric that my common sense tells me APCO are not infiltrating this website.

If they were monitoring it they may well come across some useful snippets dug up by the busy bees here, but I would not be surprised if they are not even doing that.

IH have decided to stay silent (other than Dewey with his florid threats) this seems a sensible approach given the court case.

On the other hand it does seem evident that Rossi uses sock puppet accounts and may have one or more for accessing this site. But even if I knew for a fact this was true and which accounts it was I would not ban those users, it all adds to the fun. Nor do I think Dewey should be banned, his insights are valuable and mostly appreciated.

People should only be banned for being offensive or especially rude or doxxing, or otherwise disrupting an energetic and hopefully civilized discussion.

I am also sorry Eric. You guys have now have an insight in how things were handled growing up in my family. But they are almost all dead now so the fighting eventually stops, the funny thing is no one was ever the winner, just a broken family. Also since you now know this you can understand why I think it should be stopped. Maybe folks will not agree but understand the motivation. Just one more time please 'permabans are bad.' Also 'my way or the highway is just as bad.'

Quote from ZenoOfElea

If you want to ban astroturfers and shills how do you go about that?

I don't want to ban astroturfers and shills, and that's not at all what I suggested. I was talking about people who accuse others of being shills and astroturfers. The absurd thing about all this is I don't really care if people accuse others of being shills or astroturfers. It doesn't bother me. But apparently it rubs Eric Walker the wrong way, and he has banned people and threatened to ban them for making such accusations. But he does so in a biased way, and my suggestion was to try to take the bias out of it.

joshg,

The APCO astroturf stuff definitely rubs me the wrong way, as I've been on the receiving end of similar accusations on more than one occasion in the past. Accusations which were patently false from my own perspective. They are a distraction that sidetracks otherwise productive conversations. Allowing them to flourish gives a podium to people with fringe views. Anyone who succumbs to the temptation of raising the alarm and attacking forum members as APCO shills without bringing forward concrete, credible evidence risks a warning.

Your allegations of bias are noted. They will probably have little affect on how things are handled absent credible evidence of APCO astroturfing.

Quote from Eric Walker

My feeling that the APCO astroturf scenario is not likely goes beyond the implausibility of the "IH is trying to stall/kill LENR" conspiracy. I pay close attention to forum members and what they post, and I try to get a sense of the personality and motives of each one if I can (admittedly this is not easy). None of the “pro-IH” people strike me as being anything other than ordinary LENR watchers, of the kind I’ve interacted with over a number years. The IH APCO shill scenario is implausible to me because there’s no one that immediately comes to mind who raises suspicions in that connection.

Until last Friday I could agree that LENR-Forum was managed only on a medium bias level. But after one moderator sent out the famous “APCO/IH-style” e-mail, that alleged that Rossi should be in deep trouble, this opinion does no longer hold.

I hope the writer of this e-mail has enough guts to out him-self and explains his motivation to completely distort the facts.

In fact there was excellent news for Rossi, as all spoliation claims (as predicted to 100%) were wiped off the table and the final Jury date has been agreed on. Conclusion: there is more more work for back stage lawyers.

Quote from Wyttenbach

I hope the writer of this e-mail has enough guts toout him-self and explains his motivation to completely distort thefacts.

Wyttenbach, welcome back. Please do not troll this forum with the whole APCO astroturf schtick unless you can muster more than circumstantial evidence. What you mention here, hoping someone will "out" himself, is not going in a good direction.

I believe it is barty, AlainCo or David Nygren that sends out the emails. I'm sure it was a misinterpretation of what information is available.

Quote from AlainCo

Censorship is when there is no place to express your wisdom nor your stupidity.

In U.S. law and common usage, censorship usually means a government agency is censoring. It could be local or national. In the past, the city of Boston was famous for censoring books and movies, which gave rise to the term "banned in Boston" -- which became a selling point for racy books.

Government censorship is now considered a violation of the Constitution, although it was common in the past, up until the late 1960s.

Colloquially we say, for example, "any statement in favor of cold fusion is censored at Wikipedia." That is not censorship in the legal sense, because Wikipedia is a private organization and it is free to set any rules or ban any speech it wants. The people running this site (whoever they are) are free to exile anyone they want, for any reason or no reason.

From 1934 to 1968, movies in the U.S. were censored by the Motion Picture Production Code. Strictly speaking this was not government censorship. It was imposed by the Motion Picture Association, but supported by the government with de facto enforcement. It was finally ended at a result of a lawsuit in 1970. The U.S. government banned the movie "I Am Curious (Yellow)." The Supreme Court overturned this.

Over-the-air TV and radio broadcasts are still censored by the Federal Government FCC. Cable and Internet are not, except for a few things such as child pornography and speech that violates other laws such as national security.