Moderation of critics and critics corner

[ian neal]

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

[johndoe]

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"?

[Leiff]

Why are you getting so excited about this johndoe?

Anyone would think your job depended on it!

[johndoe]

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.

[ian neal]

[johndoe]

"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.

[flamesong]

Critics Corner = Free Speech Zone

Discuss.

[Leiff]

[ian neal]

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?

[ian neal]

[johndoe]

"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?

[ian neal]

[xmasdale]

[ian neal]

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)

[TonyGosling]

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 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.

[Pikey]

[johndoe]

"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, "

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"

[ian neal]

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

[flamesong]

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.

[ian neal]

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.

[Poacher]

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.

[Pikey]

[Poacher]