FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Moderation of critics and critics corner

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> About this website
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away


Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:37 pm    Post subject: Moderation of critics and critics corner Reply with quote

Following on from discussions here

How should this forum engage with its critics?

Should critics be permitted to post outside of critics corner on non-9/11 related issues?

How would such a policy affect the feel of the forum?

Critics are welcome to contribute to this thread

Thanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
johndoe
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 181

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

if you will insist on critic's being unable to post outside this forum then it would be sensible to have a seperate but equal policy.

ie. critics can not post outside the critics corner and non-critic cannot post in it.

"Should critics be permitted to post outside of critics corner on non-9/11 related issues?"

of course. why would your position on 9-11 effect your views on other things?

and also can you care to define "critic"?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why are you getting so excited about this johndoe?

Anyone would think your job depended on it! Rolling Eyes

_________________
"Democracy is sustained not by public trust but by public scepticism"
George Monbiot
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johndoe
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 181

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well not my job, i only spy on small internet websites part time. the rest of the time i'm busy going around supermarkets adding mind control serum into baby milk. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away


Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johndoe wrote:
"but discussion of critics posting outside CC is not global warming related."

then that wouldn't have been my derailment, it would have been yours. my last post here before you deleted it and started discussing if i could post here was about the amount of man made co2 in the atmosphere.


I agree John. I'm not saying you have derailed the thread, just that the discussion of the participation of critics outside of critics corner should continue on the suggestions thread

johndoe wrote:
"If you consider the Kean report to be unsatisafactory and support the global call for a new independent investigation, then you are not a critic and therefore free to post anywhere. I had made the assumption that you are a critic on the basis of your previous posts but if this is not the case I'm happy to revise this and welcome you as a supporter for a further investigation"

am i a critic of the "9-11 truth movement" that believes totally in the idea of direct government involvement in 9-11? yes

would i object to further unbiased and proper investigation? no

what does that make me?


As is patently clear both from this forum and other 9/11 sites, the "9-11 truth movement" captures a very broad range of opinion. Some sites categorically state what they believe happened and who are the guilty parties. The British and Irish campaign does not. It does say

Quote:
There are hundreds of pieces of compelling and verifiable evidence and testimony that directly challenge the 9/11 Commission's report.


and

Quote:
The 9-11 Commission has "failed" in its mandate to provide an independent, impartial, "full and complete accounting" of the attacks of September 11, 2001. We believe the Commission is wrong in crucial respects and the available evidence indicates that US officials authored or facilitated the attacks and their cover-up.


What unites us is our belief that a new investigation is required.

What the campaign does not require is that supporters sign up to all the other views expressed on this forum which is independent of the campaign

For example Paul Stott who authored a highly critical article about 9/11 truth activism in this country is free to post anywhere since he is on record supporting a reinvestigation.

I have no problem with you posting outside CC provided you support a reinvestigation. This is different from not objecting to further unbiased and proper investigation since this could be read as meaning you believe the Kean Commission was unbiased and proper, which it clearly wasn't. I would also be interested to know what questions and issues you feel remain unanswered by the investigations to date. This would help in determining whether we have common ground.

Your separate but equal proposal is not without merit (namely that non-critics could not post in CC), but if they could be bothered non-critics could c&p content from CC and challenge it outside of CC. I'll think about it.

I believe I have defined a critic. A critic is someone who does not support the global call for an independent reinvestigation of 9/11

Thanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
johndoe
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 181

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I have no problem with you posting outside CC provided you support a reinvestigation."

well the report was flawed and should be re-investigated.

yet i will stand by until categorically proven otherwise the idea that 9-11 had no direct involvement from the government.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Critics Corner = Free Speech Zone

Discuss.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johndoe wrote:
am i a critic of the "9-11 truth movement" that believes totally in the idea of direct government involvement in 9-11? yes


johndoe wrote:
yet i will stand by until categorically proven otherwise the idea that 9-11 had no direct involvement from the government.


Ingsoc would be proud...

People such as this are not helping the campaign for 9/11 truth...

Come on Mods!

_________________
"Democracy is sustained not by public trust but by public scepticism"
George Monbiot
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away


Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks

there is currently a plan awaiting final approval and implementation from the site's administrators to introduce some new sections to this forum.

The changes include the following

Home page

Change from The British 9/11 Truth Campaign
To The British Truth Forum

In the forum

Merge articles and news and rename 9/11 and false flag terror news

General

Change the description from General forum for all other 9/11 information

To General discussion of the ‘war on terror’ and war on freedom (aka war on civil liberties)

Introduce new section

The bigger picture

Discuss the global elite: their ways, their lies and their downfall. Discuss a better world

Introduce new section

Controversies

The home for the most controversial discussions
(Forum not moderated except for contraventions of the law)

Critics corner

Change For critics of the 9/11 Truth Campaign
To For critics of the 9/11 truth movement

Dustbin.

For all locked threads, with a comment from moderators, so users can see what and why an undesirable was locked

---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

This plan is still to be finalised but it strikes me that the proposed controversies section is very similar to the free speech zone flamesong mentions.

That would leave the question of whether critics corner is separate from this free speech zone or merged with it and if CC is separate, whether non-critics would still be able to post in CC.

Of course if CC was indeed a place in which ONLY critics could post that would leave JohnDoe with the difficult decision to make: is he a critic or not. Does his support for a new investigation make him a non-critic or does John's need to see definitive proof such as a signed confession from GWB mean that he must remain a critic?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away


Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leiff wrote:
People such as this are not helping the campaign for 9/11 truth...

Come on Mods!


True enough John wouldn't win any awards for 9/11 truth campaigning but as a movement how 'we' are seen to deal with criticism is important especially if we are not to be dismissed as a bunch of fanatics or fantacists who refuse to engage in reasoned debate. If we banned all critics out right this would be the perception.

Now most of our critics to be found in critics corner are not interested in reasoned debate IMO as even a quick tour of CC demonstrates hence the need for a separate area, but this does not mean that all critics are incapable of reasoned debate.

And equally we should not delude ourselves that everything said in the name of the 9/11 truth movement is true or stands up to scrutiny. Such are the limitations of public forums where anyone can register and post any views (whether these views are true or not).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
johndoe
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 181

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Now most of our critics to be found in critics corner are not interested in reasoned debate IMO as even a quick tour of CC demonstrates hence the need for a separate area, but this does not mean that all critics are incapable of reasoned debate. "

and where would you place me iain?

"Merge articles and news and rename 9/11 and false flag terror news"

you see this would give the impression that you have now totally accepted 9-11 was a "false flag operation"

"People such as this are not helping the campaign for 9/11 truth..."

oh on the contrary.

"This plan is still to be finalised but it strikes me that the proposed controversies section is very similar to the free speech zone flamesong mentions.

That would leave the question of whether critics corner is separate from this free speech zone or merged with it and if CC is separate, whether non-critics would still be able to post in CC. "

is this meant to mean that the rest of the forum does not practice free speech?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away


Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

johndoe wrote:
"Now most of our critics to be found in critics corner are not interested in reasoned debate IMO as even a quick tour of CC demonstrates hence the need for a separate area, but this does not mean that all critics are incapable of reasoned debate. "

and where would you place me iain?


I haven't read that many of your posts but those I have are generally in the reasoned debate camp

johndoe wrote:
"Merge articles and news and rename 9/11 and false flag terror news"

you see this would give the impression that you have now totally accepted 9-11 was a "false flag operation"


True

Suggest "... and other alleged false flag terror events"

johndoe wrote:
"This plan is still to be finalised but it strikes me that the proposed controversies section is very similar to the free speech zone flamesong mentions.

That would leave the question of whether critics corner is separate from this free speech zone or merged with it and if CC is separate, whether non-critics would still be able to post in CC. "

is this meant to mean that the rest of the forum does not practice free speech?


Currently there are restrictions, yes. Topics considered 'off-topic' are restricted presently (the nazi holocaust, lizardry, alien abductions and so forth). This is clearly stated in about us . The suggestion is that any topic that does not sit easily in the other sections would be placed in the free speech zone provided it is discussed respectfully and does not break the law
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
xmasdale
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ian neal wrote:

Controversies

The home for the most controversial discussions
(Forum not moderated except for contraventions of the law)

Critics corner

Change For critics of the 9/11 Truth Campaign
To For critics of the 9/11 truth movement



Ian, does that mean that posts implying that Jews are intrinsically inclined to support criminal and inhumane activities by the powers that be, whether by genetic, cultural or religious influence, are to be allowed in this section?

I hope not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away


Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Noel

Absolutely not. But then such posts could reasonably be construed as promoting religious or racial hatred and so would be in danger of breaking the law and so would be deleted and the user banned

However there are a number of issues such as discussion of the nazi holocaust or more generally the nature of the Israeli state, MOSSAD and zionism that are inherently controversial and that certain users seem determined to discuss. The suggestion is that rather than censor such discussion they are placed into a free speech zone. Users would still be required to operate according to the law and also post respectfully.

Other controversial theories might include chemtrails, ET, lizardry and so forth. It just keeps a certain distance in much the same way as the 9/11 controversies section separates out discussion of the most speculative areas from areas of 9/11 that are grounded in evidence and are less controversial (atleast within the 9/11 truth movement)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 17169
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's simple,

For anything useful to be achieved on the forum the main sections must be about developing a sound and authoritative critical analysis of 9/11 as an "inside job" of some degree. There are quite a few facts that have been established to do with 9/11 such as that the twin towers and WTC7 were brought down by some form controlled demolition, the US air defences were 'disabled' etc. etc.

One wonders why anyone who might want to try and dismntle those basic facts would be here Wink But just in case they are genuine in any way they have their own zone, Critics Corner.

IMHO any racist views expressed or links to sites such as Jew Watch should be immediately and permanently banned.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Pikey
Banned
Banned


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Change from The British 9/11 Truth Campaign
To The British Truth Forum


The 911 truth campaign is losing its focus. Those responsible for the events of 911 will I am sure be delighted by this action.

This website has been the UK 911 truth campaigners best asset, even though the shill/troll attacks have been accommodated and allowed to grow.

IMO its a step backwards. Is this action supported by the majority?

_________________
Pikey

Peace, truth, respect and a Mason free society

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE#
www.wholetruthcoalition.org
www.truthforum.co.uk
www.checktheevidence.com
www.newhorizonsstannes.com
www.tpuc.org
www.cpexposed.com
www.thebcgroup.org.uk
www.fmotl.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johndoe
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 181

PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"There are quite a few facts that have been established to do with 9/11 such as that the twin towers and WTC7 were brought down by some form controlled demolition, "

Laughing do you even knpow the meaning of "established"?

established by who? under what authority?

for similar establishments see:

"i have established there are little grey men on mars who pop across to steal cheese from the clangers on the moon"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away


Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Pikey

The thinking behind this change is driven by the widely agreed need for this forum to be clearly separate from the campaign and campaign site.

I'll post more on this when I get the chance and feel free to call

Ian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regardless of whether there is a need for an off topic section, it is clear that there is a demand for it.

As it seems that one is to be created, might I suggest that it is only visible to registered users who are logged in - very simple to achieve with phpBB - so that any whacky views expressed would not be visible to the casual viewer/lurker and could not be hot-linked on other websites which may seek to defame the cause.

Thus, hopefully satisfying those who fear that the focus is being lost by retaining several sections focussed on 9/11 and hiding the off-topic stuff out of the way AND supplying the demand which is evident both by shear volume of off-topic (and grey) material and the regular calls to create such a section.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away


Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is precisely these concerns that is driving the changes proposed and they have been discussed long and hard at various meetings including the recent ones held in Blackpool and Bristol.

It is understandable that those of us who are commited to building a professional and credible campaign are not happy to have the campaign associated with all the views expressed on this forum. I'm certainly not. There is already a disclaimer on this site and numerous posts explaining that the campaign does not endorse any of the views expressed here or any of the content on sites linked from this forum. However there is a need to strengthen this separation so that the campaign website can flourish.

It is also equally obvious that there is in deed demand from users to discuss wider issues than just 9/11 and at the same time providing a space for people with an interest in 9/11 and other alleged high conspiracies to discuss a wide range of issues openly. I agree with your suggestions flamesong, but the clearest way we can protect the reputation of the call for a new investigation is to keep clearly stating the blindingly obvious.

Namely that

1) this is a public forum where anyone can register and post as they see fit (within the rules of the forum).

2) So clearly the forum's administrators and moderators and the management committee of the campaign are not responsible for the credibility or otherwise of the content posted here.

3) And of course such a public forum is open to abuse by actors who would wish to derail the truth movement by posing as genuine campaigners but who are actually here to disrupt affairs. Such is the nature of public discussion forums.

Once it is better understood that this forum does not to represent the campaign, I expect users can relax more about what is and isn't posted here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Poacher
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: South East UK

PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My 2p. . .

This site is averaging around 4,000 visits a day and an average viewer is looking at 7 pages and this is growing.

The single aim of this site and forum should be to educate and inform about 9/11. It has been set up and is run by people passionate about trying to do this and while not all have exactly the same opinions, the overwelming aim is to show that the OCT is wrong.

As with any public forum the percentage of viewers to posters is small. For every poster there are 100 viewers (lurkers) and quite possibly higher here because of the nature of the subject.

It should be the overiding aim to help and embrace all viewers and not to put obsticles in their way.

My view is that it is plainly obvious when you have a poster who is here for no other reason than to disrupt, it sometimes takes a while due to the nature of their disruption (like sleeper disrupters who post for a while as a truther then start to disrupt) but an experienced moderator can spot these.

My suggestion is to take a much harder line, real 9/11 truthers who have genuine questions and want debate are easy to spot. The rest should be banned.

99.9% of the registered members here would be happy to state that 9/11 is being covered up, yet why are we letting government stooges in here?(for that is what they are, paid or unpaid). We are supposed to be standing up for our rights and freedoms yet are pussy footing around because we want to be 'fair'? Get real. The sooner they are banned, the more you will turn visitors into registered contributing forum members. . . and 9/11 activists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pikey
Banned
Banned


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire

PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
My 2p. . .

This site is averaging around 4,000 visits a day and an average viewer is looking at 7 pages and this is growing.

The single aim of this site and forum should be to educate and inform about 9/11. It has been set up and is run by people passionate about trying to do this and while not all have exactly the same opinions, the overwelming aim is to show that the OCT is wrong.

As with any public forum the percentage of viewers to posters is small. For every poster there are 100 viewers (lurkers) and quite possibly higher here because of the nature of the subject.

It should be the overiding aim to help and embrace all viewers and not to put obsticles in their way.

My view is that it is plainly obvious when you have a poster who is here for no other reason than to disrupt, it sometimes takes a while due to the nature of their disruption (like sleeper disrupters who post for a while as a truther then start to disrupt) but an experienced moderator can spot these.

My suggestion is to take a much harder line, real 9/11 truthers who have genuine questions and want debate are easy to spot. The rest should be banned.

99.9% of the registered members here would be happy to state that 9/11 is being covered up, yet why are we letting government stooges in here?(for that is what they are, paid or unpaid). We are supposed to be standing up for our rights and freedoms yet are * footing around because we want to be 'fair'? Get real. The sooner they are banned, the more you will turn visitors into registered contributing forum members. . . and 9/11 activists.


Spot on IMHO Poacher. Salute

There are ways and means of identifying the infiltrators here. they are without doubt holding the campiagn back here. The sooner we get shut of them the better for moving the UK campaign forward.

I have my own list of suspects but dont have evidence/proof. Its pretty obvious though when you read their contributions to this site.

_________________
Pikey

Peace, truth, respect and a Mason free society

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE#
www.wholetruthcoalition.org
www.truthforum.co.uk
www.checktheevidence.com
www.newhorizonsstannes.com
www.tpuc.org
www.cpexposed.com
www.thebcgroup.org.uk
www.fmotl.com


Last edited by Pikey on Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Poacher
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: South East UK

PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pikey wrote:
I have my own list of suspects but dont have evidence/proof. Its pretty obvious though when you read their contributions to this site.


Thanks Pikey. . .I too have my nominations. But just getting rid of the top five totally obvious ones would be splendid start. Who is going to miss them? It would also save countless hours of moderators time which they can devote to helping real contributers to the site.

As an aside. . . who added 'pus.sy' to the list of banned words here? Rolling Eyes Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> About this website All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group