The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Bikini Polaris on June 06, 2019, 08:10:43 PM

Title: REs netiquette
Post by: Bikini Polaris on June 06, 2019, 08:10:43 PM
Motivated by my previous observation that in this forum there isn't much FE2FE discussion, I wonder if REs shouldn't look for some rules to follow, in order to allow FEs to reach at least a certain amount of freedom here. Moreover, it would help the quality of the debate, which often amounts to a yes vs no fight.

Advantages for REs
- They could concentrate better on what arguments actually can make it
- Less redundancy in arguments
- Hopefully get to see more FEs around
- More sharing of previous experiences

Disadvantages for REs
- it's unpleasant to be told what to do
- feeling that "Science" must bow and be sacrificed

I have some rules in mind, but I largely prefer to hear others REs proposals :)
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: stack on June 06, 2019, 10:46:35 PM
Over on the other site they have a "Flat Earth Believers" forum where only approved FEr's or FE 'supporters' are allowed to post. Coincidentally there's a discussion right now about using that area for more FE2FE discussions/debates. Which, in theory, it already is. However, it's not really being used in that manner I guess due to a low number of participants. I'm not sure how it would play out anyway. One example to look to is maybe Dubay's http://ifers.123.st/ site. Only FEr's are allowed to post. Participation as a whole seems to be spotty at best there.

What do you propose?
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Bikini Polaris on June 07, 2019, 09:42:06 AM
Over on the other site they have a "Flat Earth Believers" forum where only approved FEr's or FE 'supporters' are allowed to post. Coincidentally there's a discussion right now about using that area for more FE2FE discussions/debates. Which, in theory, it already is. However, it's not really being used in that manner I guess due to a low number of participants. I'm not sure how it would play out anyway. One example to look to is maybe Dubay's http://ifers.123.st/ site. Only FEr's are allowed to post. Participation as a whole seems to be spotty at best there.

Ouch, I missed those. I'll have a look, but yes, there's the possibility of a non-sense in this topic. At that point maybe everything gets useless I guess?

What do you propose?

Basically anything that would lead FEs to one of these two outcomes:
- FE doubting flat earth
- FE showing signs of not being distinguishable from a fake FE/prank
as these are the only two reasonable outcomes.

Somehow I don't think the REs attempts here are accomplishing any of those two. It's mainly pointless that REs explain to each others how the Earth is round. It's pointless to show complicated diagrams of how the RE model is. It's pointless to revisit 400 years of epistemology and methodological doubt just because FEs wish somehow to be right. They're pointless because they are confirmations of how Science works, not the "Zetetic" method.

FEs thrive on knowing their own priorities and not revealing those to the world. Discovering what they value most is the first step. So I'm pretty sure that hulls disappearing first over the horizon for them is a trivial objection, they already have the auotmatic answer. But maybe something else isn't. So, at first, I would try to not follow what they want to stress, as it's probably a controversial topic they thrive on.

But it's mainly a brainstorming here.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: AATW on June 07, 2019, 10:56:05 AM
Over on the other site they have a "Flat Earth Believers" forum where only approved FEr's or FE 'supporters' are allowed to post. Coincidentally there's a discussion right now about using that area for more FE2FE discussions/debates. Which, in theory, it already is. However, it's not really being used in that manner I guess due to a low number of participants. I'm not sure how it would play out anyway. One example to look to is maybe Dubay's http://ifers.123.st/ site. Only FEr's are allowed to post. Participation as a whole seems to be spotty at best there.

What do you propose?

I'd like to see more FE on FE discussion. I don't know whether that discussion should be restricted to FE people though.
I don't understand why there is not more discussion on here between FE people, given how many different FE models there are or certainly major parts of the model which there is no consensus about.
Pete hinted elsewhere that some of this discussion goes on in private, I'm not clear why that is.
I'm sure they're sick of the repetition of threads from fly-by RE people on here, I am too. More threads started by FE people would mix things up a bit.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: ChrisTP on June 07, 2019, 01:18:14 PM
"Pete hinted elsewhere that some of this discussion goes on in private, I'm not clear why that is." - It's a lot easier and pleasant to 'debate' and discuss with people who already agree with your fundamental belief. Lots of confirmation about what you think to be true can feel better than the harsh realities of the public internet where the very opposite happens.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 07, 2019, 01:45:29 PM
It's a lot easier and pleasant to 'debate' and discuss with people who already agree with your fundamental belief.
Thanks for the extremely rude assumption/accusation in a thread which advocates for an improvement in netiquette - hopefully the irony sinks in. To those genuinely interested, this sort of stuff is why FE'ers debate amongst themselves in places you won't be admitted to.

Best of luck to those of you advocating for a change of approach - sounds like you've accurately identified (some of) the problem, even if I can't help with the solution.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: AATW on June 07, 2019, 02:26:51 PM
To those genuinely interested, this sort of stuff is why FE'ers debate amongst themselves in places you won't be admitted to.
So, out of interest, what are these forums for?
They seem to be mostly used for RE people to ask the same questions over and over again and/or claim that various parts of FE Theory don't work.
Is that what you guys want this place to be?
Don't you want some forums where you can discuss your ideas and try and move towards consensus on some of the issues which are in dispute?

I can't imagine your intention was to have FE forums where people who don't subscribe to FE beliefs come on here to tell you why you're wrong.
I mean, you're going to get that if you're going to open these boards up to the public, but it's not all this place should be, is it?

The forum I run is lamentably quiet now but back in the day it was pretty busy, we used to get a couple of thousand posts most days. Lots of threads and chat.
Often though I'd find that debates were often ruined by a few idiots who were there more to troll than debate.
I think you guys are too strict in the way you moderate but I must admit we probably went too far the other way and were far too lenient. Always a difficult line to tread I find.
Anyway, I did at times contemplate a part of the forum where people could have more serious debates and we'd moderate that part more strictly. Never did it, but it's something to consider.
Maybe there should be a section for FE people to debate and only FE people and carefully selected RE people would be allowed to post?

It just seems a bit odd to have public FE forums mostly dominated by RE people and then have debates amongst yourselves in private.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: ChrisTP on June 07, 2019, 02:34:10 PM
It's a lot easier and pleasant to 'debate' and discuss with people who already agree with your fundamental belief.
Thanks for the extremely rude assumption/accusation in a thread which advocates for an improvement in netiquette - hopefully the irony sinks in. To those genuinely interested, this sort of stuff is why FE'ers debate amongst themselves in places you won't be admitted to.

Best of luck to those of you advocating for a change of approach - sounds like you've accurately identified (some of) the problem, even if I can't help with the solution.
Apologies but even if this isn't the case for yourself it still is the case in general. It's not an assumption, it's more like the saying "Don't surround yourself with yes men". Why have hidden discussions away from people that will disagree? You will need to debate with the 'opposing' side otherwise you aren't really debating, you've already decided the earth is flat and now you're discussing how and why it's flat with people who also agree it's flat.. I prefer out in the open even if I am proven wrong or have the odd internet troll try to ridicule. And obviously, me not being a flat earther, I'd like to see these discussions too.

You're assuming the worst of me, a lot goes without saying. I talk to people in private too about all kinds of stuff, that's not my issue, it's simply discussing with people who'll confirm your beliefs without anyone to say "well no, I don't agree and here's why". If that makes any sense. Sorry if what I said came off as rude.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 07, 2019, 05:49:48 PM
So, out of interest, what are these forums for?
One of the Flat Earth Society's core principles is that ideas and opinions should flow freely. This forum will be what its regulars make of it, for better or for worse.

They seem to be mostly used for RE people to ask the same questions over and over again and/or claim that various parts of FE Theory don't work.
Is that what you guys want this place to be?
Personally, no, and I continue to hope that this temporary wave of RE shitposters will either get bored and leave or start doing something useful.

Don't you want some forums where you can discuss your ideas and try and move towards consensus on some of the issues which are in dispute?
We do have that. But if we let the RE crowd in, we'll be back to square one. The alternative is to go full Eric Dubay and start banning people for disagreeing with us - which is completely contrary to our ideals. Another option would be to get the RE crowd to start being constructive, but that's entirely outside of any of our powers.

It just seems a bit odd to have public FE forums mostly dominated by RE people and then have debates amongst yourselves in private.
Surely you find most everything about the FE movement odd. But short of censoring the shit out of everyone, I can't see a better outcome. As I mentioned many times before, these waves of smug RE'ers are temporary. Every now and then they flood us for a year or two in response to some media attention, and eventually they peter out. In my view, it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: markjo on June 07, 2019, 07:36:37 PM
Don't you want some forums where you can discuss your ideas and try and move towards consensus on some of the issues which are in dispute?
We do have that. But if we let the RE crowd in, we'll be back to square one. The alternative is to go full Eric Dubay and start banning people for disagreeing with us - which is completely contrary to our ideals.
Or, you could try a middle ground approach where FE'ers have an area where they can discuss freely but RE'ers can still watch.  You know, like the FE Believers board on the other site.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 07, 2019, 07:45:31 PM
I have come to the conclusion that average FE don't want to debate it. They want to learn about it from other FE. The FE'ers who bother to debate on forums long term mainly do so to strengthen their models. Whereas the average FE don't have that motivation. They want to learn, not argue with strangers about it.

The RE seem more than willing to spend many hours of their life researching topics for us, free of charge, which is generous and invaluable.

However, the debate forums which improve the technical aspects of FET should ideally be a secondary feature to a tube website of some sort with a constant stream of Flat Earth videos, which provide information, research, opinions, in order to continue the growth which was seen on YouTube. The videos can be hosted on YouTube and the new and popular videos from selected channels can be displayed. All we need to find is some platform which can facilitate this.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: markjo on June 07, 2019, 09:18:47 PM
However, the debate forums which improve the technical aspects of FET should ideally be a secondary feature to a tube website of some sort with a constant stream of Flat Earth videos, which provide information, research, opinions, in order to continue the growth which was seen on YouTube.
I would respectfully disagree.  Improving the technical aspects of FET should ideally be a primary feature.  After all, what good is a constant stream of FET videos if the content of those videos can't stand up to critical scrutiny?
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 07, 2019, 09:23:51 PM
However, the debate forums which improve the technical aspects of FET should ideally be a secondary feature to a tube website of some sort with a constant stream of Flat Earth videos, which provide information, research, opinions, in order to continue the growth which was seen on YouTube.
I would respectfully disagree.  Improving the technical aspects of FET should ideally be a primary feature.  After all, what good is a constant stream of FET videos if the content of those videos can't stand up to critical scrutiny?

People are interested in conspiracy, religion, social aspects, mark sargent interviews with professionals and military personnel, the flat earth podcast radio shows, etc., etc., much of which do not have a place in forum web chat format.
 
Forum web chats have an astounding history of not significantly growing the movement, while all of the above do. Things which grow the movement should be put front and center and things which do not should be of less priority. The forums are still of value, just not to the public at large who want to primarily observe and learn about it rather than debate it.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: spherical on June 07, 2019, 09:26:53 PM
Scientific brain can not have blockages, walls, doctrines, it must be free to research, question a lot, experiment, try and find answers.   Everything that have prohibitions, rules for thinking and pressure is related to faith, blind faith, it has one direction and closed to expansion.

When I came here months ago, the name "Flat Earth Society" was a neon sign for a door where I thought I would find answers for FE statements that didn't make sense, nowhere better than here, right?   The word "forum" talks by itself, it is a discussion place, where everyone can voice his thoughts and generate discussions around it, validating or not, learning or teaching, for an overall truthful result.

After I read the rules and search the wiki a bit, my first post and question was related to the physical dimensions of Australia on FE map, that bother me for months and no logic explanations.  Then I was immediately warned by Pete, because my question was trivial and done thousands of times before.   I had a legit question, and hoping to have a good answer in a place where FErs concentrate and talk about it. Instead I got a slap.  That pushed me back to the opposite side of my sincere intentions.  Can't ask this kind of questions? Why not?

I didn't want to change my view of this world, RE of FE, I wanted to change, perhaps, my view of Fers not explaining things in a logic way, and that for me would be a great advance. 

So, I don't know if I am contributing to  the netiquette in the forum, I want to, but one thing that would reduce the smoke of REs is just improve Wiki with more logical and scientific explanations.   You can still say that atmosphere is dense and you can not see that far, but it must have a method of research and lab experiments with plausible and repeatable results, not just a personal opinion and a text written 150 years ago, going against all thousands of actual scientists and research institutes and laboratories in the world with today's much better technology and tools to prove or disprove those old texts.

I still think that both, REs and FEs can together discuss ideas and questions.  Good answers for the recurring questions must be on Wiki, clear, detailed and unquestionable true.  A strong Wiki make the place stronger, nicer and fine. You can end up creating a learning center for FEs and REs. Why not?

Tom said that a regular FE doesn't want to discuss, just want to learn.  But to learn you need to have valid and concise literature and logical texts, images, experiences possible to be done over the kitchen table. People need to feel confident about the learning, not by faith, but by logic and sure truth.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 07, 2019, 09:36:22 PM
I have come to the conclusion that average FE don't want to debate it. They want to learn about it from other FE. The FE'ers who bother to debate on forums long term mainly do so to strengthen their models. Whereas the average FE don't have that motivation. They want to learn, not argue with strangers about it.

The RE seem more than willing to spend many hours of their life researching topics for us, free of charge, which is generous and invaluable.

However, the debate forums which improve the technical aspects of FET should ideally be a secondary feature to a tube website of some sort with a constant stream of Flat Earth videos, which provide information, research, opinions, in order to continue the growth which was seen on YouTube. The videos can be hosted on YouTube and the new and popular videos from selected channels can be displayed. All we need to find is some platform which can facilitate this.
I agree with Tom.
What I have seen here agrees with what I have seen on other platforms. I have continually reached out and tried to begin collaborative dialogues with the goal of arriving at objective truth. As Tom says, FEs are more interested in sharing ideas between themselves, and are decidedly not interested in my ideas.
I agree with OP Bikini Polaris, that the FEs probably don't much appreciate the opinions of the REs. The mistake Bikini Polaris makes is holding that idea that the FEs have any wish to participate in that type of debate.
There are certainly some FEs on here who enjoy debating for debate's sake, but I've not encountered any who are open to the idea that these discussions could ever change their opinion about the shape of the Earth.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: spherical on June 07, 2019, 10:39:16 PM
There are certainly some FEs on here who enjoy debating for debate's sake, but I've not encountered any who are open to the idea that these discussions could ever change their opinion about the shape of the Earth.

But that is the thing, I am a researcher, my whole life I investigate things, mostly to solidify what I can read on books and other people's findings in labs or the field. I am not seeking other people that share my own truth, no, I don't want companionship.  I normally seek to research what initially I don't give credit, because the scientific truth is exactly in proving what it is impossible.  "This think will not going to break"... then make everything to break it, step on it, through from the fifth floor, hammer it.  If it breaks, that was not the truth, could be a partial truth, so lets report it accordingly.

I am not a Cloak and Dagger defender of this or that, I am pro scientific truth all the way.  I don't care if that will be against 99% of the population.  It would be fantastic if everyone in here would be seeking the truth, not polarized, not induced by what other people think or wrote.  Except, of course, if this is not the intention of this place. 

Anyway, the fact that all moderators are defenders of FE, make me think twice.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Bikini Polaris on June 08, 2019, 12:40:44 AM
I'm sure they're sick of the repetition of threads from fly-by RE people on here, I am too. More threads started by FE people would mix things up a bit.

Oh yeah.

and I continue to hope that this temporary wave of RE shitposters will either get bored and leave or start doing something useful.

REs and FEs look like coming from different planets (pun intended :) ), it really looks like the two groups are talking different languages and the outcome is what you're saying: boredom.

Or, you could try a middle ground approach where FE'ers have an area where they can discuss freely but RE'ers can still watch.  You know, like the FE Believers board on the other site.

I don't like this, because then REs2FEs discussion would still be fruitless.

I have come to the conclusion that average FE don't want to debate it.

This would make useless any forum, I guess.

but one thing that would reduce the smoke of REs is just improve Wiki with more logical and scientific explanations. 

This is something that could be the number one, and only, allowed discussion approach for REs. Everything else denied (no insisiting about sunsets, no pressing with other questions), just push for "more details". After all, if a FE isn't willing to make its idea clear, what else can work?

The mistake Bikini Polaris makes is holding that idea that the FEs have any wish to participate in that type of debate.
There are certainly some FEs on here who enjoy debating for debate's sake, but I've not encountered any who are open to the idea that these discussions could ever change their opinion about the shape of the Earth.

This is a critically important point. Still, it is possible that discussing with the few of them willing to discuss, would reveal important details on the FE mindset. If REs would agree on what works and what doesn't (and if your read Pete posts, nothing now is really working).


I am pro scientific truth all the way.  I don't care if that will be against 99% of the population.  It would be fantastic if everyone in here would be seeking the truth, not polarized, not induced by what other people think or wrote.  Except, of course, if this is not the intention of this place.  .

Consider the possibility that you're using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Consider the premise of being a FE, clearly that's something weird from a RE p.o.v., they aren't trying to discredit science, just to convince themselves of a beautiful fairy tale.

----

I think here REs are agreeing that the current approach is fruitless. If we're so keen on science we may conclude with a p-value less than 0.05 that we're wasting our time because we're not finding the right approach. FEs just want to close themselves into a sauna and breath conspiracies? Well fine. Will there be a backdoor or not? This is what matters. Btw, I do like and I'd expand the proposal by spherical: if someone states the earth is flat and create a wiki, the right approach would be to elicit logical details. I don't think FEs could ignore that (maybe), because that's what FEs would do too (again, maybe).
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: markjo on June 08, 2019, 01:04:44 AM
People are interested in conspiracy, religion, social aspects, mark sargent interviews with professionals and military personnel, the flat earth podcast radio shows, etc., etc., much of which do not have a place in forum web chat format.
If that's true, then there must be something wrong with me because I don't care about any of that.  As far as I'm concerned, all of that is just click-bait.  If you're going to tell me that nearly everything that I think I know about the nature of the universe is wrong, then I want plausible, coherent explanations of why FET is better than RET and I want to be able to tell you why you're wrong.

Forum web chats have an astounding history of not significantly growing the movement, while all of the above do. Things which grow the movement should be put front and center and things which do not should be of less priority. The forums are still of value, just not to the public at large who want to primarily observe and learn about it rather than debate it.
All of that it fine and well, but if you don't have a theory with any substance, then I don't see how "the movement" could be considered anything more than a cult.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 08, 2019, 01:13:23 AM
People are interested in conspiracy, religion, social aspects, mark sargent interviews with professionals and military personnel, the flat earth podcast radio shows, etc., etc., much of which do not have a place in forum web chat format.
If that's true, then there must be something wrong with me because I don't care about any of that.

If you don't care that Mark Sargent is having interviews on his shows with military personnel who say that they don't use Coriolis, or career surveyors who say that they don't use curvature, then I can only characterize that as intellectually dishonest. Many of these videos do have value and are of great interest.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: markjo on June 08, 2019, 01:25:02 AM
People are interested in conspiracy, religion, social aspects, mark sargent interviews with professionals and military personnel, the flat earth podcast radio shows, etc., etc., much of which do not have a place in forum web chat format.
If that's true, then there must be something wrong with me because I don't care about any of that.

If you don't care that Mark Sargent is having interviews on his shows with military personnel who say that they don't use Coriolis, or career surveyors who say that they don't use curvature, then I can only characterize that as intellectually dishonest. Many of these videos do have value and are of great interest.
No, I don't really care about personal testimonials that can be cherry picked and taken out of context.  Personally, I'm more interested in a plausible FE model that can explain everyday phenomena like the apparent motions of the sun and moon.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 08, 2019, 01:32:28 AM
Quote
No, I don't really care about personal testimonials that can be cherry picked and taken out of context. Personally, I'm more interested in a plausible FE model that can explain everyday phenomena like the apparent motions of the sun and moon.

I see. So anyone Mark Sargent interviews is fake or was taken out of context and needs no promotion or consideration. It seems that you are just trolling us then.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: markjo on June 08, 2019, 01:49:09 AM
Quote
No, I don't really care about personal testimonials that can be cherry picked and taken out of context. Personally, I'm more interested in a plausible FE model that can explain everyday phenomena like the apparent motions of the sun and moon.

I see. So anyone Mark Sargent interviews is fake or was taken out of context and needs no promotion or consideration. It seems that you are just trolling us then.
In the hierarchy of evidence, I would think that testable models would rank higher than personal testimonials.  After all, how many people have done interviews and given personal testimonials about being abducted by aliens or seeing big foot?
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 08, 2019, 02:11:22 AM
Quote
No, I don't really care about personal testimonials that can be cherry picked and taken out of context. Personally, I'm more interested in a plausible FE model that can explain everyday phenomena like the apparent motions of the sun and moon.

I see. So anyone Mark Sargent interviews is fake or was taken out of context and needs no promotion or consideration. It seems that you are just trolling us then.
In the hierarchy of evidence, I would think that testable models would rank higher than personal testimonials.  After all, how many people have done interviews and given personal testimonials about being abducted by aliens or seeing big foot?

The Coriolis Effect being discarded for military weapons  and curvature discarded in surveying seems like a test of the models to me.

Anything that anyone claims is a "personal testimonial."
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: markjo on June 08, 2019, 02:25:06 AM
The Coriolis Effect being discarded for military weapons seems like a test of the models to me.
That would depend greatly on the context.  Coriolis is most likely used in calculating the initial settings for the first shot and then manual adjustments would be applied for each successive round.

Anything that anyone claims is a "personal testimonial."
That's why I prefer testable models over claims and testimonials. 

I'm quite surprised that we're having this discussion.  Aren't you the one who regularly nit picks RE claims and testimonials until you dismisses them for lack of evidence?  Why aren't you subjecting Mark Sargent's interviewees to that same level of scrutiny?
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Bikini Polaris on June 09, 2019, 10:57:36 AM
I'm quite surprised that we're having this discussion.

Can't you see how fruitless is the current approach and, at the same time, how surprising it is, for REs, that it doesn't really work?
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Tumeni on June 09, 2019, 12:35:47 PM
The Coriolis Effect being discarded for military weapons  and curvature discarded in surveying seems like a test of the models to me.

Strikes me that depends on the size/range of the weapon, and the size of the surveying project. In both cases, it can be argued that they're too small for Coriolis or Earth circumference to be considered.

If you have guaranteed examples of real people being interviewed on camera in this regard, throw up a new thread for discussion and rebuttal.   
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: tellytubby on June 09, 2019, 10:08:42 PM
Garmin seem to be still manufacturing products that have built in Coriolis correction as a feature.

https://iknowwatches.com/garmin-foretrex-401-vs-601-vs-701/

Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: AATW on June 10, 2019, 12:26:26 PM
This forum will be what its regulars make of it, for better or for worse.

Spot on. Any forum is only as good as its members.
But while you're going to get some fly-by "lol, erf is rund" people, most of us who have been here a while are not like that.
Yes. I think the earth is round. But I am interested in your ideas and why you believe them. I am interested in your attempts to make a more coherent model.
I'm disappointed I see so little of that on here.
Right now it's like the Wiki is your "manifesto" and you're like "Come and have a go if you think the earth is round enough".
You want growth and publicity but given how few people subscribe to a FE belief, most of the people who hear about FE and are interested enough to visit you will be RE believers.
I don't think this is a phase. Or, if it is, then it'll mean when it's past that interest in FE is dying out.

Quote
We do have that. But if we let the RE crowd in, we'll be back to square one. The alternative is to go full Eric Dubay and start banning people for disagreeing with us - which is completely contrary to our ideals.

There is a middle ground here, you allude to it yourself when you say "get the RE crowd to start being constructive"
You say there are places where you discuss FE ideas amongst yourself. Are those places on here? Are there sections that the great unwashed can't see?
If not then adding some would be an option. And the middle ground is people earn their place into those sections. And they don't do that by saying they believe the earth to be flat, they do that by showing they can debate sensibly in the sections they can see. If you genuinely don't want RE input into those discussions then that's your prerogative of course, but then it does become somewhat of an echo changer.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: spherical on June 10, 2019, 03:03:45 PM
May be, first we need to know the color of the soil, before we try to discuss about it.
How many of the actual subscribers on this forum are FEs and REs?
Perhaps this should be stated on the profile, so you could have this statistic published.
Who knows? may be there are 7950 FErs here, and only 50 REs. By itself this would talks a lot.
On profile there is also Yahoo YAM information, no sense at all, why not change that for "RE or FE?"
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 10, 2019, 04:54:03 PM
On profile there is also Yahoo YAM information, no sense at all
Talk to the people who made SMF and who added that (I'm guessing) 15 years ago. I agree that this could be purged, but it's so extremely low priority it's probably never happening.

I don't think this is a phase. Or, if it is, then it'll mean when it's past that interest in FE is dying out.
Meh, it is. We've been at it for more than a decade now. Every now and then we get a spike in media attention which brings the RE zealots over, and eventually they get bored. The FE movement at large grows regardless of this pattern. But yes, ultimately the hope here is that interest among a specific demographic dies out.

And the middle ground is people earn their place into those sections. And they don't do that by saying they believe the earth to be flat, they do that by showing they can debate sensibly in the sections they can see.
And who would the gatekeepers for that be? Bear in mind that (for example) you and I have extremely differing views on which contributors here are and are not sensible. If it were me choosing, most of the people who ask for more FE attention wouldn't get in - in effect, nothing would change. If you were choosing, then people like me wouldn't participate - nothing would change.

If you genuinely don't want RE input into those discussions then that's your prerogative of course, but then it does become somewhat of an echo changer.
I think you could be more generous with your assumptions about FE-on-FE discussions, at least the ones I alluded to participating in. The way you describe it, it sounds like you're imagining a room with a few people repeatedly saying "erf flat", "Ah, yes, quite!" to one another. Usually, it's much more heated than that, and the discussion focuses on differences, not similarities. I'm sure many echo chambers exist (well, I know they do, and I've been banned from quite a few, lol), but I agree that those are not useful or interesting.

Indeed, this is why I think the ball needs to be in RE's court here. We get an excessive amount of threads from regulars who just discuss among themselves about how round they think the Earth is, and how much they agree with one another.

Finally: while this forum has its purpose, and the outreach it generates is super useful, I think you're mistaking a relatively small forum ran by FE'ers for the entirety of the FE movement. If you don't like this particular section of the movement, you have plenty of options already available. You could go on Twitter and talk at some of the FE'ers there (many are needlessly hostile and not willing to discuss at all, but some of them can be civil and informative). It all has its upsides and downsides, but there is a diverse selection of means of communication available to you.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: ChrisTP on June 10, 2019, 06:47:55 PM
I would be ok with a section of the forum that Confirmed flat earthers could post and discuss in but is read-only to everyone else. I usually just sit back and read through threads anyway but if FE'ers feel they need a place they can discuss without non flat earthers giving them a hard time, I'd still like to be able to read it.

I don't know how one would confirm who a flat earther is though, sure enough people will pretend just so they can get access granted to read/write in that section of the forum.

I was a little surprised to find AR and CN when I finally joined after a decade of lurking, so maybe another option would be having a section hidden to anyone with a post count lower than a certain amount (there surely has to be an average post count of people who join to troll and get bored). Hell maybe there is a section like that and I haven't reached that post count yet :P
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: markjo on June 10, 2019, 07:10:06 PM
And the middle ground is people earn their place into those sections. And they don't do that by saying they believe the earth to be flat, they do that by showing they can debate sensibly in the sections they can see.
And who would the gatekeepers for that be? Bear in mind that (for example) you and I have extremely differing views on which contributors here are and are not sensible. If it were me choosing, most of the people who ask for more FE attention wouldn't get in - in effect, nothing would change. If you were choosing, then people like me wouldn't participate - nothing would change.
Check me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t vetting potential believers supposed to be one of the intended purposes of the (since defunct) Zetetic council?
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Bikini Polaris on June 11, 2019, 12:04:10 AM
I would be ok with a section of the forum that Confirmed flat earthers could post and discuss in but is read-only to everyone else. I usually just sit back and read through threads anyway but if FE'ers feel they need a place they can discuss without non flat earthers giving them a hard time, I'd still like to be able to read it.

The OP is about what we REs could do to engage interesting discussions with FEs.

Indeed, this is why I think the ball needs to be in RE's court here. We get an excessive amount of threads from regulars who just discuss among themselves about how round they think the Earth is, and how much they agree with one another.

I agree with that. Amusingly, this what REs think of FEs.

May be, first we need to know the color of the soil, before we try to discuss about it.
How many of the actual subscribers on this forum are FEs and REs?

That's maybe overly optimistic, and also I don't think this forum should care about people believing in shapes different from flatness.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 11, 2019, 12:07:38 AM
But yes, ultimately the hope here is that interest among a specific demographic dies out.
I'd appreciate it if you'd be willing to clarify that one. I can't help but wonder whether I fit into your demographic. If I'm not wanted, please tell me so.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: AATW on June 11, 2019, 01:35:45 PM
I don't think this is a phase. Or, if it is, then it'll mean when it's past that interest in FE is dying out.
Meh, it is. We've been at it for more than a decade now. Every now and then we get a spike in media attention which brings the RE zealots over, and eventually they get bored.

Fair enough. You've been at this longer than me so I'll accept you know the patterns better than me.
But it comes with the territory of trying to promote yourselves. And wouldn't you prefer if RE people came here and thought "Hmm, maybe these guys are on to something"?
Or don't you care?
If you do then you need a more coherent model.

Quote
And who would the gatekeepers for that be
It would have to be you I guess. You plural, you "the mods". You run this place.
One option is to have the section read only for Members but then allow only FE people in to post. Personally I'd find that frustrating, I signed up because I saw some of the things Tom in particular was posting, thought it was nonsense and wanted to chip in. Having a section where even as a member I couldn't participate would be annoying and would most likely lead to people creating spin off threads in the other sections.
The other option - one I would recommend - is you let selected RE people in. And yes, we have different views about who those people are but I don't see a huge risk here. If you let someone in who isn't behaving you can always kick them out again.
I'd say the ideal is these conversations happen on the existing boards but a FE "safe space" with RE access carefully limited may encourage more FE on FE debate on here, which is probably the intention of this place.

Quote
Indeed, this is why I think the ball needs to be in RE's court here. We get an excessive amount of threads from regulars who just discuss among themselves about how round they think the Earth is, and how much they agree with one another.

That's fair comment, although I don't agree it's entirely in our court. It would be good if there were more threads from FE people to discuss bones of contention within the community, it's not up to RE people to start those.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2019, 04:58:24 PM
Check me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t vetting potential believers supposed to be one of the intended purposes of the (since defunct) Zetetic council?
Yeah, I'm gonna go with "wrong" on that one. Vetting people for a board we all agreed would not exist was not part of the ZC's duties.

I'd appreciate it if you'd be willing to clarify that one. I can't help but wonder whether I fit into your demographic. If I'm not wanted, please tell me so.
We're veering massively into the realms of personal judgement here, so please take everything I say here with a pinch of salt. My view is that anyone who comes here to talk about how they think the Earth is round is at least a little bit misguided. In a way (though I readily acknowledge this is a poor analogy), it feels like going to a football fans' forum to complain about one's dislike of football.

But, of course, this is a sweeping generalisation of different groups of people. There are some who come here to literally just repeatedly state that [they think] the Earth is round. Then you have people who one-sidedly argue for RE, without considering or acknowledging other possibilities. At the other extreme of the spectrum, you have RE'ers who actively help push debates in the right direction, direct newcomers to FE resources, and even help develop FET.

I don't know where exactly I'd like to draw the line if one existed. It's one of the reasons I personally wouldn't want to draw a line.

But it comes with the territory of trying to promote yourselves. And wouldn't you prefer if RE people came here and thought "Hmm, maybe these guys are on to something"?
Many do. You just happen not to be one of them. Every time I point out to you the unprecedented growth of the FE movement, you mistake it for starry-eyed pride, but it remains factual (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/flat-earthery-british-style/).

I get that you'd like to do things differently (and you're welcome to help us progress in the direction you'd like to see!), but ultimately your claims of our incoherence are difficult to follow, and your claims of our inefficiency are simply in conflict with publicly-available stats.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: totallackey on June 14, 2019, 11:19:03 AM
I agree with that. Amusingly, this what REs think of FEs.
I fail to see:
A) How this can be amusing...

II) Any FE adherents glad handedly slapping each other on the back, saying, "...attaboy!"
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Bikini Polaris on June 15, 2019, 10:54:50 AM
I agree with that. Amusingly, this what REs think of FEs.
I fail to see:
A) How this can be amusing...

II) Any FE adherents glad handedly slapping each other on the back, saying, "...attaboy!"

It's funny simply because REs lack the ability to adapt that FEs have. For any good argument REs come up with, FEs adapt and thrive. Then a new equilibrium is found and REs fail to improve.

The attempts of REs here are so fruitless that I wonder how they can stand their waste of time.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Bikini Polaris on June 16, 2019, 10:05:47 AM
A second netiquette point would be to warn new REs of the futility of asking for non-contradictory explainations.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: ChrisTP on June 16, 2019, 01:35:22 PM
A second netiquette point would be to warn new REs of the futility of asking for non-contradictory explainations.
It's a fair thing to ask though? If your answers are contradicting your other answers then why would you even give one of the answers in the first place? either one or none are correct, don't contradict yourself if you wanna be taken seriously. For example you have tomB calling out and mocking people for saying mirages exist in a round earth and thus our round earth is an illusion then in his next breath saying earth can only be flat with illusions and mirages, Tom contradicts himself constantly and he's the one writing the FE wiki most of the time. Why shouldn't people ask for non-contradicting answers? There is zero point in giving a contradicting answer.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: AATW on June 17, 2019, 03:38:58 PM
We're veering massively into the realms of personal judgement here, so please take everything I say here with a pinch of salt. My view is that anyone who comes here to talk about how they think the Earth is round is at least a little bit misguided. In a way (though I readily acknowledge this is a poor analogy), it feels like going to a football fans' forum to complain about one's dislike of football.
You admit it's a bad analogy, but I think the difference is as much as I think Rugby is boring, I wouldn't bother going on to a Rugby forum to tell everyone how stupid they are and how rubbish the sport they follow is. Because it's subjective. I like football, I don't like Rugby. But if people want to watch a sport which I find boring then fine, doesn't affect me. And the idea that someone might like Rugby isn't mind-blowing to me, it's a very popular sport.

And that's the difference. The idea that anyone would believe in a flat earth in this day and age - particularly in the era of space travel, GPS etc - is mind-blowing to me. Does it do me any harm if people believe  that? I guess not. But when I heard this was a thing and found this place (Nice SEO by the way, kudos) and saw Tom saying things like planes don't know how fast they travel or no-one knows how far Paris is from New York or sunset is caused by "perspective" I couldn't help but sign up and chip in rather than shouting at the screen. I don't expect Tom to ever change his opinions but maybe others who see the debates will. Why do I care? Because I do think this "post truth" world we live in is damaging. No-one's going to die because they believe in a Flat Earth but it is linked with a conspiracy theory mindset and distrust of authority which leads people to believe one rogue report about MMR being linked with autism, a load of kids not getting vaccinated and some dying from measles. There's obviously a middle ground, blind faith in "authority" is harmful too.

I don't know which of your RE categories you think I'm in. I'd place myself in the second. I don't create endless threads about how round the earth is but I don't acknowledge any other possibilities. I mean. In the literal sense sure, anything is possible I guess but your Wiki and the arguments I've seen on here have failed to sway me. If your retort is "but you haven't done any tests for yourself" then I guess that's fair. But I have done a few small things to show that shadows being lit from below isn't because of perspective and neither is it waves occluding tall buildings. I've done a bunch of diagrams to explain concepts too. My contributions have been mostly about how certain FE ideas in the Wiki don't (in my view) hold much water. And if Tom (it's usually Tom) misrepresents or fails to understand the heliocentric model then I'll join in to correct or explain.

Quote
Many do. You just happen not to be one of them. Every time I point out to you the unprecedented growth of the FE movement, you mistake it for starry-eyed pride

I think you get a bit over-excited, you have generated a lot of interest and deserve credit for that. Have you swayed some people? Of course. Some people believe Elvis is still alive, or that they've been abducted by aliens and so on. Niche beliefs will always be believed by some and the internet makes it easier to spread them. I can see how some people who have a certain conspiracy theory mindset and are pretty ignorant of science could be swayed or at least interested. It's pretty much the mother of all conspiracy theories.
But anyone with decent knowledge of science will see the theories for what they are unless, he says, dragging this kicking and screaming back to the point I'm trying to make, you have a more coherent theory. And that will only come by discussion amongst yourselves and I see none of that going on here. I take the point that this place is not the entirity of the FE Community, but it's still a place where I would expect to see (and would like to see) those sorts of discussions take place, even if you feel the need to limit RE access to them (which would be sensible)
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 17, 2019, 04:28:20 PM
I think the difference is as much as I think Rugby is boring, I wouldn't bother going on to a Rugby forum to tell everyone how stupid they are and how rubbish the sport they follow is. [...] The idea that anyone would believe in a flat earth [...] is mind-blowing to me.
It's mind-blowing to me that someone would waste their time watching 10-or-so blokes chase a not-so-well-inflated ball, trying to kick it so that it goes to a certain place while preventing another 10-or-so blokes from kicking it towards another place. Like, that's some proper moron-grade stuff. Ooga booga, who kick ball better???? I'm genuinely baffled and depressed by how limited others must be to enjoy this sort of stuff.

Nonetheless, most of the time I refrain from commenting on it, because wasting my time on it would be even dumber - they can enjoy their game as long as they don't get in my way (thank Christ the local pub has a Football-Free Zone policy), and I can think they're stupid without getting all in their face about it. This is where people like you (and the even more problematic RE shitposters) differ from people like me. You guys do come here to complain about your view that someone is wrong on the Internet (https://xkcd.com/386/), actively seeking us out, and then you act indignant when we don't feed you. Quelle surprise.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Bikini Polaris on June 17, 2019, 10:10:18 PM
A second netiquette point would be to warn new REs of the futility of asking for non-contradictory explainations.
It's a fair thing to ask though? If your answers are contradicting your other answers then why would you even give one of the answers in the first place? either one or none are correct, don't contradict yourself if you wanna be taken seriously. For example you have tomB calling out and mocking people for saying mirages exist in a round earth and thus our round earth is an illusion then in his next breath saying earth can only be flat with illusions and mirages, Tom contradicts himself constantly and he's the one writing the FE wiki most of the time. Why shouldn't people ask for non-contradicting answers? There is zero point in giving a contradicting answer.

The scientific unfairness is pointless when contradictions abound in FET and they don't care. Empirically, it's a waste of opportunity to ask something else. What if FET is not a scientific endeavour but a psychological trick? What's the REs path of least resistance? I'm just trying to find an empirical ground, because right now the asymmetry of information is in huge favor of FEs.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: AATW on June 18, 2019, 09:50:57 AM
I think the difference is as much as I think Rugby is boring, I wouldn't bother going on to a Rugby forum to tell everyone how stupid they are and how rubbish the sport they follow is. [...] The idea that anyone would believe in a flat earth [...] is mind-blowing to me.
I don't like football but I don't waste my time saying so. I wonder why you do about FE?
I'm not hugely into golf but I did watch the last day of the Masters - Woods' win was amazing and it was a great day of sport.
I loved it. But yeah, you could say "A man used a stick to hit a ball into a hole and everyone lost their shit, how ridiculous".
You can deconstruct any sport like this.
But while there are some sports I like, others I don't, sport is, in general, very popular. Over a billion people watched the last World Cup Final.
You might not like it, maybe you don't understand why people do but you are aware that it is a very popular sport.
Till recently I wasn't even aware that FE was a popular sport, so to speak.

And, fun fact: taste in sport/music/tv/films is subjective. The shape of the earth is not subjective. It is what it is.
Scientific ideas are not subjective. They can be tested. For example, Galileo said that objects of different masses fall at the same rate on earth (I know I've expressed that poorly, please don't nit pick!).
And he was right. That is not my opinion. It can be tested.
Of course, ideas may evolve over time as we learn more - two cannonballs of different mass may hit the ground at the same time if you drop them at the same time, a hammer and a feather do not. Other forces are at work on earth which don't have a significant effect on cannonballs but do on feathers. So that slightly changes the original assertion.
As David Scott showed during Apollo 15, drop a feather and a hammer at the same time in a vacuum and they do fall at the same rate.

So, having discovered that this was a thing, FE piqued my interest and when I saw Tom saying stuff like sunset can be caused by perspective then I felt the need to chip in. I think it's important that stuff which is demonstrably wrong is challenged. He is demonstrably wrong about perspective, and horizon dip. That doesn't mean the earth is a globe of course. Does it matter if people believe wrong stuff? Not in this case, maybe. But there are other examples - I gave one above - where this sort of woolly thinking has consequences.

And coming back to the point I'm trying to make, if you did go to a football forum to tell them how rubbish football is and you found every thread was from Rugby fans telling them why Rugby was brilliant and football was a game for pansies then wouldn't you find that odd? It's a football forum but none of the football fans on it are on there discussing who their best player is, whether the manager should be sacked, their hopes for next season. Every thread is Rugby fans telling them how rubbish their sport is. Wouldn't you wonder why they don't either kick them out or create their own threads? And if they did create their own threads and those threads were hijacked by the Rugby fans then maybe they should create their own section of the forum where they could just discuss football. Maybe they'd let some of the Rugby fans in but not the ones who only want to say how rubbish football is.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Tumeni on June 18, 2019, 11:16:07 AM
This is where people like you (and the even more problematic RE shitposters) differ from people like me. You guys do come here to complain about your view that someone is wrong on the Internet (https://xkcd.com/386/), actively seeking us out, and then you act indignant when we don't feed you. Quelle surprise.

... but you actively ASK the general public in. It's right there on the Home Page, under the forum heading.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 18, 2019, 01:43:25 PM
... but you actively ASK the general public in. It's right there on the Home Page, under the forum heading.
Indeed, we invite people to participate in a meaningful discussion. That doesn't mean dropping "wow erf rund" turds all over the place. Did you fail to understand the discussion up to this point, or have you just not bothered reading beyond the one paragraph you've quoted?

Focus, Tumeni. Think really, really hard about how productive it is to rush into a thread about how RE'ers could be a bit more civilised and acting like a case study for said thread. I believe in your ability to figure this out.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: ChrisTP on June 18, 2019, 03:07:03 PM
On that same note Pete, you could also be a bit more polite if you're trying to advocate being polite. It goes both ways after all, FE peeps can be just as rude/insulting/dumb, it's not limited to just people who don't believe in the flat earth.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 18, 2019, 04:28:41 PM
you could also be a bit more polite
I choose my tone to match my conversation partner. If you've proven yourself to be thoroughly unpleasant and deliberately obtuse, I'm not going to waste my time on something that won't be appreciated.

if you're trying to advocate being polite
Sigh. I recommend that you read the thread and take note of the aspects of netiquette I've been focusing on here. Politeness was really not high up on the list (and arguably not on the list at all). It may also be helpful to read the OP's original proposal - you will notice, once again, that it has little to do with your concept of politeness.

Mind you, you were already reminded of this once:
The OP is about what we REs could do to engage interesting discussions with FEs.
Yet you and Tumeni persist in proving BP's point by repeatedly demonstrating the worst of RE in this thread. Failing to follow the discussion before opening your mouths, deflecting to "uh okay but what about <bad thing about FE that has nothing to do with the thread>", and simply refusing to listen to anyone other than yourselves. Gee, it's so surprising that I treat you like idiots.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: ChrisTP on June 18, 2019, 04:38:24 PM
By definition, Netiquette is about good manners online and also by definition, means to be polite. But if you weren't focusing on that then ok, but it's still literally in the OP title and you've already told me once in this very thread that being rude is part of the problem.

"a thread which advocates for an improvement in netiquette - hopefully the irony sinks in."
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 18, 2019, 04:41:09 PM
By definition, Netiquette is about good manners online
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 19, 2019, 09:07:58 AM
if you did go to a football forum to tell them how rubbish football is and you found every thread was from Rugby fans telling them why Rugby was brilliant and football was a game for pansies then wouldn't you find that odd? It's a football forum but none of the football fans on it are on there discussing who their best player is, whether the manager should be sacked, their hopes for next season.
That's simply untrue. Yeah, your shit threads tend to outnumber internal discussion, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And, once again, you mistake this forum for FES or the FE community. Can't help you with that, other than by simply pointing it out.

Every thread is Rugby fans telling them how rubbish their sport is. Wouldn't you wonder why they don't either kick them out or create their own threads?
We're already kicking people out if they misbehave particularly egregiously - as one of the most trigger-happy critics of every mod action in existence, you're well aware of this, and I doubt you actually want me to step it up. Your proposed solution is that we become Dubay's IFERS or Davis's "other FES". Those places already exist. If you think they're a good idea, just go there. We're not there because we think it's a bad idea, and we'd rather allow people to discuss freely. If you think your side's contributions are currently unhelpful, you could be part of the change you're asking for.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: stack on June 19, 2019, 09:32:51 AM
Your proposed solution is that we become Dubay's IFERS or Davis's "other FES".

How would you describe this society as different than the "other FES"?
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 19, 2019, 01:51:48 PM
How would you describe this society as different than the "other FES"?
I'm merely repeating statements from up-thread, not introducing new ideas. I wouldn't describe them in any way that wasn't already brought up here.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: AATW on June 23, 2019, 06:32:39 PM
That's simply untrue. Yeah, your shit threads tend to outnumber internal discussion, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
It's rare. I can't think of many threads where I've seen several FE people on here discussing one of the areas of contention between you in an attempt to come to some consensus. Most threads are started by RE people saying "Hey, what about..." and often many of the replies are from other RE people too - other than Tom who often chips in, others do occasionally but much less frequently.
You might not BE the FE Community but you are surely part of it, this place should be some part of having those discussions to advance FE theories, no?

Quote
Your proposed solution is that we become Dubay's IFERS or Davis's "other FES".

Well, the first part of your reply implies you don't think there is a problem to solve.
The problem I see is not enough discussion between FE people on here to advance your theories. If you don't agree that's a problem because you think there's enough of that on here then ok. Not how I see it but you're the boss.
If you think it's not a problem because you can have those discussions elsewhere then ok, but I'm not clear what these boards are for because that should surely be part of what they're for. Or maybe you agree it's a problem but only a temporary one because the wave of RE people on here will soon get bored and move on then fair enough, I guess it's your call if you want to ride it out.

But, IF you think that FE people are put off starting or engaging in threads because of all the RE people then a solution would be to create more of a "safe space" on here for FE people to have those discussions. And having "free discussion" and going "full Eric Dubay" are not the only two options. An obvious middle ground is to allow selected RE people in. Or maybe the default would be that everyone has access but people who don't post within the spirit of that section could be kicked out. FE Investigations could even BE that section, the name implies that's what it's for.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 23, 2019, 07:55:30 PM
You might not BE the FE Community but you are surely part of it, this place should be some part of having those discussions to advance FE theories, no?
It is one. Shockingly, the opinion of the unproductive RE peanut gallery changes nothing on that front.

An obvious middle ground is to allow selected RE people in.
I've explained this multiple times in this thread - you would not be happy with any such selection process.

Or maybe the default would be that everyone has access but people who don't post within the spirit of that section could be kicked out.
This is already the case. You're one of the main opponents of this approach. Please pick a side and stick to it - it's difficult to take you seriously when your suggestion is to work against your suggestions even more than I already am.

Doubly so when you try to hijack a thread in which an RE'er suggests that RE'ers should behave differently in order to complain about the fact that we haven't permabanned/purgatoried you yet.

By the way, stop doing that. Read the OP and stay on topic.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: AATW on June 24, 2019, 07:03:38 AM
An obvious middle ground is to allow selected RE people in.
I've explained this multiple times in this thread - you would not be happy with any such selection process.
That doesn’t matter. My suggestion is about making this site better for you, not for me.
Yes, I would like to participate in the threads I’m talking about, it would be up to you (plural) to decide whether I (or anyone) is doing so in a way you deem productive.

And my suggestion isn’t what you have already. People can either see and post in all sections or none, my suggestion is have some sections more dedicated to discussion between FE people and have that section more (but not completely) restricted.

The OP is about the lack of FE on FE debate and whether RE people could behave differently to encourage more. My opinion is that the RE people who stick around are behaving, that’s why we haven’t been banned. I don’t know why FE people are put off having debates on here but I suspect the sheer number of RE posters and the fly-by shitposters are factors. I’m not trying to hijack the thread, my suggestion is an alternative way of encouraging more FE on FE debate on here which is completely relevant to the OP.
Title: Re: REs netiquette
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 24, 2019, 07:12:34 AM
My suggestion is about making this site better for you, not for me.
Inventing a problem that doesn't exist and hijacking a perfectly good thread to "solve" it is not making anything better for anyone. This is the last time I politely ask that you stop. If you're not here to discuss RE'ers' failures at netiquette and how they could be fixed, you're in the wrong thread.