Is The Rambles Section Really A Way of Hiding Threads Which Support CT's?

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The Rambles section:

Is it really a way of effectively 'deleting' a thread without deleting it.

The rambles section does not show up on search engines and cannot be viewed by non members even if it did. Does this not effectively equate to it's deletion?

Work has gone into creating these threads by contributors and it does not appear ethical to effectively delete these posts.

I would like to suggest that they can still be viewed by non members and that they still show up in search results. It seems only fair.

Label them as 'Rambles' if needs must but I feel strongly that they, and the work they represent, should not be made inaccessible to the general public.

I think https://www.metabunk.org/threads/es...prime-minister-of-iran.2430/page-3#post-68170 is a good case in point but also there are many others.

It could easily be construed that such threads are hidden away for 'ideological' reasons rather than stated reason of going off topic.

Debunkers do not like it when they get their posts deleted on other sites and understandably so. I would have hoped this site would not employ similar tactics.

Also, I have noticed that it appears a thread can go as 'off topic and impolite' as it likes, so long as it fits the debunker world view. See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cr...-wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/page-7#post-69159 as an example.

In fact it seems that sometimes a thread is deliberately allowed to go off topic and protests that it is going off topic are ignored, i.e. off topic posts are not moved. Sometimes this results in a thread being consigned to 'Rambles' or effectively deleted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The Rambles section:

Is it really a way of effectively 'deleting' a thread without deleting it.

The rambles section does not show up on search engines and cannot be viewed by non members even if it did. Does this not effectively equate to it's deletion?

Work has gone into creating these threads by contributors and it does not appear ethical to effectively delete these posts.

I would like to suggest that they can still be viewed by non members and that they still show up in search results. It seems only fair.

Label them as 'Rambles' if needs must but I feel strongly that they, and the work they represent, should not be made inaccessible to the general public.

I think https://www.metabunk.org/threads/es...prime-minister-of-iran.2430/page-3#post-68170 is a good case in point but also there are many others.

It could easily be construed that such threads are hidden away for 'ideological' reasons rather than stated reason of going off topic.

Debunkers do not like it when they get their posts deleted on other sites and understandably so. I would have hoped this site would not employ similar tactics.

Also, I have noticed that it appears a thread can go as 'off topic and impolite' as it likes, so long as it fits the debunker world view. See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cr...-wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/page-7#post-69159 as an example.

In fact it seems that sometimes a thread is deliberately allowed to go off topic and protests that it is going off topic are ignored, i.e. off topic posts are not moved. Sometimes this results in a thread being consigned to 'Rambles' or effectively deleted.
Gerry's "critical errors and omissions" contained a lot of valuable discussion. A large amount of work was spent on keeping it on topic, several threads were spun off, several posts were deleted, several warnings were issued.

The Rambles section is for thread that don't meet the posting guidelines. The Iran thread did not.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

You are quite free to post on other sites with less restrictive guidelines. You choose to post here knowing the guidelines. Your personal focus is on US foreign policy, so why not go find a foreign policy discussion forum?
 
Last edited:

qed

Senior Member
The thread
Established? US and UK conspired and overthrew Prime Minister of Iran.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/es...prime-minister-of-iran.2430/page-3#post-68170

concerned the recent establishment as true (motivated by the release in 2013 of CIA documents) of a conspiracy theory.

My point in posting it was to show that a conspiracy theory may eventually turn out to be true.

The political sidetracking was introduced by my opponents.

A skilled administrator would have been able to keep the thread on topic, if they so wished. (Perhaps I should have simply ignored these posts, which I now view as purposeful derailment.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Gerry's "critical errors and omissions" contained a lot of valuable discussion. A large amount of work was spent on keeping it on topic, several threads were spun off, several posts were deleted, several warnings were issued.

The Rambles section is for thread that don't meet the posting guidelines. The Iran thread did not.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

You are quite free to post on other sites with less restrictive guidelines. You choose to post here knowing the guidelines. Your personal focus is on US foreign policy, so why not go find a foreign policy discussion forum?
The main thrust of this post was:
Is it really a way of effectively 'deleting' a thread without deleting it.

The rambles section does not show up on search engines and cannot be viewed by non members even if it did. Does this not effectively equate to it's deletion?

Work has gone into creating these threads by contributors and it does not appear ethical to effectively delete these posts.

I would like to suggest that they can still be viewed by non members and that they still show up in search results. It seems only fair.

Label them as 'Rambles' if needs must but I feel strongly that they, and the work they represent, should not be made inaccessible to the general public.

Debunkers do not like it when they get their posts deleted on other sites and understandably so. I would have hoped this site would not employ similar tactics.
Which has not been addressed. It appears hypocritical to complain about a practice on one site, whilst apparently practicing it on this site.

NB. such threads do not even show up on the recent activity tab if someone comments or likes a post.

Simply by allowing public access to such threads and that they show up on search engines would remedy the situation. I feel this is a perfectly reasonable request.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
The main trust of this post was:


Which has not been addressed. It appears hypocritical to complain about a practice on one site, whilst apparently practicing it on this site.

Simply by allowing public access to such threads and that they show up on search engines would remedy the situation. I feel this is a perfectly reasonable request.
As Mick has explained. There are posting guidelines. If a thread doesn't meet the guidelines they get placed in Rambles. This is a moderated board with clear guidelines. This is not Usenet or ATS. If you don't like it post the things you want on other boards.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The threads are still there. If you want to show them to people, they can sign up in 30 seconds.

This forum is about debunking specific claims of evidence. I need to keep a certain signal to noise ratio. Unfocused diatribes about geopolitical issues are out of place here.

There's certainly an issue where a reasonable thread can be derailed, and in those cases I attempt to split the thread. In the case of the Iran thread there was nothing really interesting about it as it was talking about undisputed subjects, and it went downhill from there.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
As Mick has explained. There are posting guidelines. If a thread doesn't meet the guidelines they get placed in Rambles. This is a moderated board with clear guidelines. This is not Usenet or ATS. If you don't like it post the things you want on other boards.
Guidelines are exactly that. They can be changed where they are shown to be flawed as is evidenced by the continual alterations to the guidelines. This is the appropriate section to discus such things which is why I posted the thread here.
The threads are still there. If you want to show them to people, they can sign up in 30 seconds.

This forum is about debunking specific claims of evidence. I need to keep a certain signal to noise ratio. Unfocused diatribes about geopolitical issues are out of place here.

There's certainly an issue where a reasonable thread can be derailed, and in those cases I attempt to split the thread. In the case of the Iran thread there was nothing really interesting about it as it was talking about undisputed subjects, and it went downhill from there.
There are a number of issues here. i) is transparency and ii) is ideological censoring.

Whether it is of interest is a matter of personal viewpoint. The whole site is of absolutely no interest to billions of people but that is irrelevant. The fact that people have given their time and energy to contributing to a discussion which was open to the public, only to have it effectively deleted is relevant to the contributors.

I suggest the thread, and others, should not be locked away just because they do not support the ideological viewpoint of the site.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The guidelines are not an ideological viewpoint. They are practical tools to create a useful site that focuses on the truth behind individual claims of evidence.

If you want to talk ideology, then find an ideology forum.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
You choose to post here knowing the guidelines. Your personal focus is on US foreign policy, so why not go find a foreign policy discussion forum?
The fact of the matter is, much of the 'debunking' that goes on here is purely attempting to defend and or justify U.S foreign policy, it is just thinly disguised. Ergo, why 'debunkers' do not debunk the bunk that is put out by 'the authorities'.

When someone does debunk the bunk put out by 'the authorities', they are labeled a Conspiracy Theorist.

I cannot see any justification for hiding from public view, posts which debunk the Official Story. Label it as you will but at least let people make up their own minds whether they wish to read it or not.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Not quite sure what happened to this thread. Not in Rambles but some sort of netherworld/limbo apparently.

Debunkers keep complaining, (and I do not blame them), because their posts get deleted on CT sites. Why resort to similar tactics here? It is hypocritical.

eg. (just a few of many complaints)

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...t-uv-is-off-the-charts.2097/page-4#post-63429

I was posting here for a number of reasons which I have previously stated. i) the format, ii) politeness, iii) intelligent analysis, iv) openness, v) relatively even handedness, (although I accept a certain level of bias as normal) vi) I felt my input contributed to the site and general public awareness in that I was prepared to debunk the Official Story bunk as well as CT bunk.

I think that having people like myself contribute on this site tends to counter allegations of it being a 'disinfo site'.

I cannot think of any real justification for making the Rambles section not accessible to the general public and for it to not show up in search engines. If people want to read a clearly designated Rambles section, they should be able to IMO .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This is the site feedback forum, I moved the thread here as it was about site feedback.

I turn off guest access to the rambles forum because I don't want it indexed by search engines. Metabunk has a particular focus, and I don't want to dilute that focus.

If people follow the posting guidelines their threads will not be moved. Specifically there needs to be a focus on a specific claim of evidence. Without that then the other factors come into play.

I don't delete threads just because I disagree with the science. That's the difference between here and the conspiracy sites you describe.

I get a lot of complains about how much leeway I give the conspiracy oriented posters. I'm striking a balance here.

[The term "conspiracy" is a loose descriptor. You know what I mean. I know there are real conspiracies]
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I have modified the Rambles section so it is not indexed by search engines, but is now visible to guests.
 

qed

Senior Member
I still don't understand why my thread did not meet the requirements of this site.

The evidence I provided was the recently released CIA documents (2013). And I simply asked if this established the conspiracy theory as true.

When questioned as to whether it was really a conspiracy theory, I provided evidence that
  • in the academic literature it is referred to as such, and
  • two years after the event, the New York times was still towing the official line.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This site is about debunking claims of evidence that are wrong, and figuring out how best to prevent such stuff from forming, growing, and spreading.

There seemed nothing about your story that was a debunking, or needed debunking, and it just devolved into a political discussion.

If your question was if the conspiracy theory was true, then how could there be any other answer than "yes"? So it was a pointless question.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
This site is about debunking claims of evidence that are wrong, and figuring out how best to prevent such stuff from forming, growing, and spreading.

There seemed nothing about your story that was a debunking, or needed debunking, and it just devolved into a political discussion.

If your question was if the conspiracy theory was true, then how could there be any other answer than "yes"? So it was a pointless question.
I don't know how there could be any other answer than "yes"... but the answer from debunkers was "no" and it devolved into 'conspiracy theorist' bashing. That is what made it so interesting IMO, because it was attempting to stop such an erroneous conclusion from forming, growing and spreading.

Obviously many CT's are flawed or even outright false but where they are not, it is equally bunk to say they are. This also needs to be debunked IMO.
 
Last edited:

Josh Heuer

Active Member
This site is about debunking claims of evidence that are wrong, and figuring out how best to prevent such stuff from forming, growing, and spreading.
Yes, you mention this from time to time. But you're guilty of creating threads which don't follow the guidelines. Like the Johnson & Johnson conspiracy thread.
Was there a point to the thread? Or more specifically, what were you trying to debunk?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, you mention this from time to time. But you're guilty of creating threads which don't follow the guidelines. Like the Johnson & Johnson conspiracy thread.
Was there a point to the thread? Or more specifically, what were you trying to debunk?
See:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
J&J was about how real conspiracies fit into the world of conspiracy theories. The J&J thing was just an example of such a real conspiracy.

The criteria I use is obviously somewhat subjective. Unfortunately there's no way to automate an objective standard, so any bias I have might creep in. I do try to steer a reasonable course though.
 
Last edited:

curtispenner

Banned
Banned
I had a post on CNN faking news that got deleted into Rambles. It certainly didn't get debunked. But Mick had warned that I didn't meet the posting guidelines in my opener. I'll try posting a new same claim in "General Discussion".
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Claim: Section 13.1 on Vaccine Inserts Removed to Hide that Vaccines not Tested to Cause Cancer Conspiracy Theories 7
Mick West Recreating the missing section of IB6830's ADS-B track Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
mrfintoil Climate change forum section? Site Feedback & News 27
Stefan Leahu How atmospheric tunelling and refraction really look like in real life. Flat Earth 0
Julien Did Solzhenitsyn really say or write this? Quotes Debunked 13
K Did Elvis really say this about Andy Kaufman? Quotes Debunked 11
Mick West Slate: Conspiracy Theorists Aren’t Really Skeptics Practical Debunking 2
Oxymoron Are Humans Really Genetically Close to Apes? [Yes] General Discussion 15
blargo Living with a CT believer, sometimes it is really difficult Contrails and Chemtrails 27
N Hi, I am a "truth-seeker" from Indonesia, and I really respect site like this! General Discussion 1
Grieves Hormones, and age as a disease: A really bad idea. Health and Quackery 3
Clock 8 Ways to tell a Conspiracy Theorist is really a Fraud (or full of baloney) Practical Debunking 9
Oxymoron Norway Spiral. Was it Really a Failed Missile Launch or Was it HAARP (EISCAT) Conspiracy Theories 36
SeriouslyDebatable Did FBI Director Robert Mueller Really Say There Was No Legal Proof of hijackers ID? 9/11 18
Mick West Debunking: "Is healthy food really more expensive?" Health and Quackery 2
Mick West Context: "If people really knew, the war would be stopped tomorrow" Quotes Debunked 1
Leifer Is bill S.968 really a gov't blacklist bill ? General Discussion 1

Related Articles

Top