Validated posters etc.

[sam]

(Sorry to post here, but there's no other obvious place to put it)

I notice that while most posters have "Moderate poster" or "Editorial" or somesuch by their username, one or two have "9/11 truth critic". I can only imagine this is assigned by the administrators of the forum.

I have no grievance with "9/11 truth critics" obviously - I'm one myself - but have I banished myself to Critic's Corner for no reason? I thought that's where critics were supposed to post? As I recall Bushwacker was suspended a while back for (allegedly) posting out of CC?

It's all very mysterious. Can someone clarify?

[ian neal]

You will need to clarify with Tony as to his definition, but in effect those who should post in critics corner and only critics corner are those who accept the official explanations of 9/11 and see no need for a further investigation

That posters such as telecasterisation (who don't accept the OCT) have also been given a truth critic label is clearly a bone of contention and something Tony may (or may not) wish to explain.

[jfk]

i am '9/11 truth critic' because i post about tv fakery!
whatever, i don't care about the label, just the truth!

[sam]

[TonyGosling]

Thanks for flagging this up.
We are in the process of making it much clearer who is confined to critics corner and who not.
Stand by folks.

[telecasterisation]

[sam]

[telecasterisation]

I am not sure why there are any 'Thanks for flagging this up' - this was all brought up months ago when members found their 'on-screen persona' altered with no official warning or explanation.

It was only after I PM'ed, that a third party was prepared to offer up any kind of response - I am apparently a '9/11 Truth Critic' for nothing whatsoever related to my views on the events of the day in question.

The individual in question who assigned the new labels, has never once had the decency or courage to explain themselves - even after I posted all the relevant information in a thread.

I realise that this is way down the list of priorities, but it seems that we are always waiting for the results of something happening off in the background - these never seem to materialise in any form of official follow-up.

A couple of years ago when I was banned from here without warning or explanation due to nothing more inflammatory than a flippant remark about a helicopter, it was made clear by those who run this site that things would change, be much 'tighter' - nothing would or could happen/no-one would be ousted, without a recognised procedure of warnings. Yet here we are, 'stuff' happening with not a single flag being raised and when it is questioned, it is always 'You'll find out in due course', or 'It is currently being discussed'.

Are we to assume that 'stuff' happens with no debate or consulation behind the scenes first? Some admin just takes a dislike and presses the 'nuke' button on a whim? The lack of continuity is also truly bizarre, I am labelled a critic (and aren’t), yet sam is a self-proclaimed critic but still a 'moderate poster'?

It seems there is no cohesion, no interchange, just a clash of personalities who have opposing ideas and ideals, who then work at tangents to each other. I know it is all done on a 'volunteer' basis, but it seems you make it up as you go along, sorting it out later (if at all) all post-event, flapping a wing or offering up an associated prayer when the need arises.

Bottom line; what happened to no changes being made without it being made public first?

[redadare]

Sam C said

[TonyGosling]

[telecasterisation]

Six weeks ago we were promised;

[TmcMistress]

[ian neal]

For a long time there were no critics (i.e. users defending the official explanations), however gradually the forum did attract such critics and pointless bickering was indeed the result. You can get a sense of this by visiting the discussions around the time of the establishment of critics corner. However this distinction was confused somewhat by the introduction of user labels such as '9/11 truth critic' that stretched beyond this tight definition. IMO all labels (such as truth critic or validated poster) need commonly understood criteria which define them or they risk being meaningless.

[TmcMistress]

IMO, they should just be done away with altogether, or made completely innocuous. The titles introduce an odd sort of class structure in the forums, like "My activism is better than your activism", or to act as some sort of brand, which could potentially color how a particular posters' er, post, is read.

[ian neal]

I agree

[TonyGosling]

The Validated poster system is working fabulously IMO.

When individual posters are known or consistently 'blue sky' campaigners its common sense to flag that up - er - these people tend to be reliable posters.

Clearly shills will be the first to want to do away with such a system.

Anyone else - please come up with a decent argument.

[chrisc]

[paul wright]

[TmcMistress]

[quote="TonyGosling"]The Validated poster system is working fabulously IMO.

[Dogsmilk]

I think it's basically pointless because:

1/Is there any evidence anyone takes any notice? I know I don't. As e.g. Paul and Chris appear to have done, I form my own opinions. So I personally think some VPs tend to talk a load of rubbish and some none VPs are inherently reliable - it's always going to be a matter of personal judgement and people will inevitably have different opinions to whoever is doing the labelling. So what's the point?
If on the other hand, people do use it as a guide...well tell me I'm wrong.

2/On a forum statedly opposed to ID cards, pro individual rights and agaisnt people being filed and classified and labelled by the PTB, having a system whereby people are ascribed labels (generally) without explanation or any say in the matter in an inconsistent manner (see 3) seems ironic to say the least. As tmc says, it looks like a kind of imposed hierarchy.

3/It seems very inconsistent and misleading. For example, there seems to be no explicable reason why tele is a "911 truth critic", yet Sam - who is Ignatz and overtly a 'critic' is a "moderate poster" - and every 'regular' knows this and to anyone reading his posts it's obvious where he's coming from, so you don't even need the label anyway. Surely if anyone should be a VP Ian Neal should be but he's a "super poster". So according to the forum at time of writing, I am led to believe by the 'forum authorities' that Ian is less 'reliable' than all the VPs here. How does that make sense? Much as I dislike the guy and think he comes out with theories he won't defend, it seems strange Killtown is a "911 truth critic" - it seems very inaccurate as - love him or loathe him - he's obviously very pro "911 truth" in his own way. I'd argue it's actually rather misleading.I'm not even sure why SimpleSimon has this tag - "Jew theorist" seems more accurate to me. But it's a tall order to expect anyone to keep accurate track of all posters and the subjectivity of decision making will simply lead to patrons frequently not agreeing with labels applied which leads us back to 1/

4/Why do people need to be told what to think about other posters? Surely people can make their own minds up? Is it assumed we can't think for ourselves and need a 'higher authority' to do it for us?

5/Any actual shills would be totally unaffected given people will likely just make their own mind up anyway. People still imply things about other posters and the labelling system doesn't seem to affect that in any way.

6/If you define a VP as being generally reliable, you are making a value judgement about them. So if an outside observer reads their posts and thinks they're spouting rabid nonsense, this also implicates the forum itself as it has 'validated' them. It could be the case a VP suddenly turns out to have hardcore racist opinions or something, which could potentially give ammunation against the forum insofar as it overtly made a positive value judgement about them. On the other hand, everyone knows any charlie can join a public forum, so the forum is not specifically implicated in backing what people choose to say if there is no labelling system according to perceived value. In effect, it basically invites people to judge the forum via the content of "validated posters" which isn't necessarily a good thing...depending on your opinion of what the VPs say.

7/Human nature being what it is, objectivity is impossible. So we see on this thread that e.g. if Chris were running it, James C may be "validated", but Paul may choose otherwise. Who's right? It's a matter of subjective opinion. At the end of the day, if you don't like what someone says, they upset you, you don't like their opinions, they have different values etc, it's likely this will influence the judgement - essentially posters are only 'reliable' in terms of whether whoever is doing the labelling thinks they are and they are unlikely to be the epitome of detached objectivity. None us would be. The temptation for "reliable" to become "I just don't like you" or "I disagree with you" or "our value base is different" will be ever present. So again, people just won't necessarily agree with these judgements, so back to 1/ again.

8/(At least that I've seen) every other forum on the internet seems to get by just fine without labelling patrons in such a fashion.

9/How can you fairly judge a poster to be a "relentless limpet shill"?

10/People won't be happy about decisions made about them or being forced to carry a tag comprising someone else's personal opinion of them and will be inevitably disgruntled about it. This simply sows dischord. Correct me if I am wrong, but posts comprising people complaining about the 'data carried on their ID card' substantially outweigh posts saying how great the system is and perhaps our ID cards should carry more data.

[James C]

[TonyGosling]

To make even the tiniest distinction between people who are known campaigners and dubious anonymous entities is 'elitism'?

You sound a bit too much of a 'dumber down to zero' to me which is the problem with the mainstream innit?

Elitism?
Or quality control?

[James C]

[karlos]

James it is nothing other than exactly what it means.
A validated poster means people on this forum have met you, know who you really are and can say that you really exist. Hence you are validated.

As long as a person remains an anonymous internet poster that nobody knows the real identity of then that avatar/person cannot be considered validated.
Simple.
No elitism. Just quality control.

[Dogsmilk]

[paul wright]

Deep apologies JamesC. It was an awful thing to suggest and withdraw the term unreservedly. I'm fully appreciative of your desire to promote Peak Oil as you see it. All I was trying to say was that I haven't met you therefore have only your written text here to go by. I'm sure if I met you I'd regard you as a fine fella and agree to disagree on whatever.

As goes for chrisc who I've met and is now "validated" though I'm sure we disagree with other over a range of topics, and the same with DogsMilk who I've met on a couple of occasions and who is imo thoroughly good people acting from the best motivation

I agree that quality control has little to do with it. I noticed recently I stood at number 10 in the "top ten" posters here. I've little doubt that much of that input is the most appalling rubbish

[ian neal]

Whatever labels are used (if any), they should be useful and meaningful and not promote divisions and elitism (which could be an unintended consequence). IMO they should not reflect the extent to which someone agrees with Tony/mods (with the obvious exception of 9/11 truth critic) or be seen to be an endorsement of any kind.

[marky 54]

i have to admit im also puzzled about 'how' someone becomes validated.
i don't know anybody here(other than reading and replying to posts here).

the only person ive met is andrew johnson once, and we have disagreed with eachother a lot since. so i would'nt exactly class myself as validated if the tag is given for being known to the 9/11 truth community.

however i have also have to say i agree with this......

[James C]

[telecasterisation]

TonyGosling wrote: