Real Scn Fair Game

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
I respect what you say here. I would say that no ESMB is a bad thing, having it is definitely good. I am doing better from much that is contained within and spoken about here.

Last point I will make is this: Have you ever seen this before, where the Scientology smear sites show up here within the confines of ESMB, not specifically the sites, but talking points which could come from those sites itself, but written by different posters within the community? And furthered time after time now going onto two months? Relentlessly?
No. I came after Alanzo AV1.0 and although I had some familiarity with the mixed reviews I didn't follow it like AV2.0 but I can understand how previous version(s) were banned presumably because the program is agenda based and not discussion based. If ESMB were to continue under the new open policy I expect threads and posts would be relentlessly littered with this stuff. I also expect that it would be increasingly ignored. The only reason I respond to it at all is for general consumption and it has taken a relatively short time for me to figure that out. I stopped trying to respond to AV2.0 directly because the interface isn't really interactive, it's output is glitchy and I spend most of my time trying to correct it's inability to duplicate input. If we consider that that redefines ESMB then I guess it does but given time I think ESMB would intuitively develop workarounds, as it were. That we don't have time gives the impression that this minor or sub-app is more important than it really is.

And yes, I like that you make the distinction that Scientology corp talking points can have harmonics (one of Hubbard's favorite words) in other strata of the community without necessarily officially coming from Sciocorp. I consider this to be much like trolls can troll without any other explanation than some people are inherently trolls. Once you know the motivation then you really only need to understand that and you can tune out the noise. Scientology has made themselves irrelevant because we understand their motivations. Whatever they say about Leah and Mike can be disregarded. AV2.0 let itself be defined by very thinly veiled attempts to characterize highly diverse individuals as some kind of cult in order to establish a moral equivalency argument between Scientology and Scientology critics. The motivation was duplicitous and therefor anything that AV2.0 outputs now lacks credibility.

It has been annoying but I have to admit that the learning curve wasn't completely without some beneficial edification.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Have you ever seen this before, where the Scientology smear sites show up here within the confines of ESMB, not specifically the sites, but talking points which could come from those sites itself, but written by different posters within the community? And furthered time after time now going onto two months? Relentlessly?

It kind of reminds me of when Scientology was spamming ARS.

It's the downside of "no moderation; anything goes."

It's a good idea in theory to have no moderation and allow anyone to do anything, but in practice it generally doesn't work out so well.
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
It kind of reminds me of when Scientology was spamming ARS.

It's the downside of "no moderation; anything goes."

It's a good idea in theory to have no moderation and allow anyone to do anything, but in practice it generally doesn't work out so well.
I completely agree. There have been other posters that habitually appeared in threads after a while and just shat them up with a lot of miscellaneous incoherent BS and that often marked the end of many a very nice thread. I don't think it even needs to be intentional or thought out but it can be done without triggering moderation and is probably the most effective way to troll the board. Even if you put them on ignore you still see a lot of posts responding to them and it can be very difficult to salvage the thread.

Starting a lot of redundant threads to essentially duplicate a blog is a bit different but I think that is more obvious and would play out eventually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UTR

Veda

Sponsor
It kind of reminds me of when Scientology was spamming ARS.

It's the downside of "no moderation; anything goes."

It's a good idea in theory to have no moderation and allow anyone to do anything, but in practice it generally doesn't work out so well.
Reading this gave me a flashback to Truth Seeker (or similar name) that spammed ARS with floods of posts that would begin with what appeared to be a criticism of Scientology followed by long lists of actual dissenters or critics who were, if I recall correctly, presented as being secret operatives for Miscavige Scientology.

The objective being the creation of confusion, smearing of actual critics/dissenters, and the demoralizing of anyone reading ARS.
 

Emma

Con te partirò
Administrator
Right, so who wants to be a moderator then? I could have used you 12 years ago but whatever. Might as well jump in now, it's a short term gig - no risk.

Let's see how you do.

Veda - do you want to moderate? Oh that's right I asked you and you said no
Lulu - do you want to moderate? We've known each other for years. You never offered before. Do you want the gig now?

Is there anyone here who would like to moderate - NOT ANONYMOUSLY - and have every single one of your decisions scrutinised, complained about, questioned for authenticity, sneered at for having an agenda?

C'mon try it. It's a heap of fun.
 
Last edited:

Emma

Con te partirò
Administrator
And you Alanzo! You wouldn't help me either.

There have been 5 or 6 people the WHOLE time who helped. No one else. So you can plonk "Winner" on my post all you like. You didn't help, just like 99.9% who didn't help but who sit in judgement. I feel like telling the lot of you to <deleted>
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
And you Alanzo! You wouldn't help me either.

There have been 5 or 6 people the WHOLE time who helped. No one else. So you can plonk "Winner" on my post all you like. You didn't help, just like 99.9% who didn't help but who sit in judgement. I feel like telling the lot of you to <deleted>
I took my "winner" back then.
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Right, so who wants to be a moderator then? I could have used you 12 years ago but whatever. Might as well jump in now, it's a short term gig - no risk.

Let's see how you do.

Veda - do you want to moderate? Oh that's right I asked you and you said no
Lulu - do you want to moderate? We've known each other for years. You never offered before. Do you want the gig now?

Is there anyone here who would like to moderate - NOT ANONYMOUSLY - and have every single one of your decisions scrutinised, complained about, questioned for authenticity, sneered at for having an agenda?

C'mon try it. It's a heap of fun.
Are you responding to the "No moderation doesn't work" thing? I don't think it works because there needs to be some common purpose to the forum. This is an Ex-Scientology Message Board which implies that there is some measure of exness involved. So who decides that? Without moderation it can become actual exes vs an infinite possible interpretations of ex. I look at it like a club. You sign the charter showing that you understand and agree to the purpose of the club and if you act contrary to the charter you no longer qualify for membership. To the extent the charter is abandoned it is no longer a club.

As soon as the standard for moderation changed to include previously banned people the board was used as a blog to reinterpret exness as a cult. An ex forum that promotes exness as a cult to people trying to find their way out of a cult doesn't make sense. If the subject of exness as a cult is brought up and treated as a respectable discussion that is one thing but in a truly ex forum once it becomes recognized as a crusade it should be moderated.

OK, so having said that I still support whatever you have decided. I don't think I recall anything you have ever done that I have a fundamental disagreement with. I have been in constant awe at you and the few other people who have moderated. From my worm's eye perspective it looks like a logistical and emotional nightmare and no one should have to do this if they don't want to. You don't want to anymore and neither does anyone else so that is that but please don't go out thinking that everyone is critical of your decisions or unappreciative of what you have achieved. I think discussion about the unworkability of little to no moderation is a legitimate discussion and not about you personally. If anything it confirms your decision to shut down the forum. It could probably muddle along but it's probably better to end it here while it's still recognizable as a truly ex forum.
 

He-man

Hero extraordinary
And you Alanzo! You wouldn't help me either.

There have been 5 or 6 people the WHOLE time who helped. No one else. So you can plonk "Winner" on my post all you like. You didn't help, just like 99.9% who didn't help but who sit in judgement. I feel like telling the lot of you to <deleted>
to... get fekked?
 

He-man

Hero extraordinary
Right, so who wants to be a moderator then? I could have used you 12 years ago but whatever. Might as well jump in now, it's a short term gig - no risk.

Let's see how you do.

Veda - do you want to moderate? Oh that's right I asked you and you said no
Lulu - do you want to moderate? We've known each other for years. You never offered before. Do you want the gig now?

Is there anyone here who would like to moderate - NOT ANONYMOUSLY - and have every single one of your decisions scrutinised, complained about, questioned for authenticity, sneered at for having an agenda?

C'mon try it. It's a heap of fun.
I can moderate for two weeks, shure no problem, as He-man, if that's ok. I'd still want to retain my real life identity since I worry that half the board would send flying monkeys through my mail if I didn't. :D
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Right, so who wants to be a moderator then? I could have used you 12 years ago but whatever. Might as well jump in now, it's a short term gig - no risk.
@Emma I'll do it. I'm not anonymous.

There's a limit to how much I'll perform intimate surgery on objectionable posts. Doing it to a personal post I'm responding to is one thing, but dozens of similar posts (definition of spam) that have one or two points floating in a miasma of ad hom invective? No.

Paul
 
Last edited:

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
Right, so who wants to be a moderator then? I could have used you 12 years ago but whatever. Might as well jump in now, it's a short term gig - no risk.

Let's see how you do.

Veda - do you want to moderate? Oh that's right I asked you and you said no
Lulu - do you want to moderate? We've known each other for years. You never offered before. Do you want the gig now?

Is there anyone here who would like to moderate - NOT ANONYMOUSLY - and have every single one of your decisions scrutinised, complained about, questioned for authenticity, sneered at for having an agenda?

C'mon try it. It's a heap of fun.
I'd make the world's worst moderator so I'll give that offer a wide berth, but if the software had been written in a proper language like perl and not that silly php I would have offered to sort out the search engine/database issue to save us all from having to resort to Paul's advice on how to search esmb for stuff.
 

Emma

Con te partirò
Administrator
I can moderate for two weeks, shure no problem, as He-man, if that's ok. I'd still want to retain my real life identity since I worry that half the board would send flying monkeys through my mail if I didn't. :D
@Emma I'll do it. I'm not anonymous.

There's a limit to how much I'll perform intimate surgery on objectionable posts. Doing it to a personal post I'm responding to is one thing, but dozens of similar posts (definition of spam) that have one or two points floating in a miasma of ad hom invective? No.

Paul
It's been a long day. I'm going to bed but I'll contact you both in the morning.
 
Top