Policy Poll: COVID-Related Posts

[Unveiled Artist]

I think you don't get what the analogy is for.

Not wearing a seatbelt increases the risk of injury.
Not using masks/getting vaccinated increases the risk of illness.
Laws curtailing personal freedom (mandatory seatbelts->fines) are constitutional.
Laws curtailing personal freedom (mandatory masks/vaccines) are constitutional.

What I'm more interested in is what the precedent/analogy for the Covid regulations on RF is.

I asked earlier about the criteria RF goes to interpret CDC data in light of posts. For example, a person talking ill of the vax, which is a good 1% maybe but quote CDC material to support their point how would they moderate it?

In light of the supported claim or would it be assumed CDC is used incorrectly to make a point?

I can see puting RF doesn't endorse members opinions but maybe new viewers would be put off if they thought RF was supporting other views without the clause I don't know.

The seatbelt analogy s a poor one unless they are using drinking and driving. But then that's somewhat off because being unvax doesn't mean you're not taking other precautions to not spread the virus if one catches it.

To many hidden variables and it does it no justice when the argument is also online too among other analogies and terms most common id call provax to their antivax counterparts

 

[Shadow Wolf]

a. Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't get you into a car crash.
b. Not taking the vaccine doesn't make you sick with COVID.

Not doing either significantly increases the risk of disaster and things being worse than need be. That is a fact. Vaccines save lives just as seat belts save lives.

a. The difference is risk of catching COVID as an unvaccinated person depends on the level of risk you take.

That mentality is why we have suffered and are struggling still with this. People think their ok. They think they are evaluating the odds correctly. But so many end up killing themselves and others because they are blind to the fact that being around others automatically puts them at risk due to the extremely contagious nature of covid.

The thing is.... drinking and driving has a higher chance of getting into an accident than catching COVID insofar if you are reckless driving and people are in the way you WILL harm them.

Covid kills more than drunk drivers.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I asked earlier about the criteria RF goes to interpret CDC data in light of posts. For example, a person talking ill of the vax, which is a good 1% maybe but quote CDC material to support their point how would they moderate it?

I would assume they'd moderate it for misrepresenting the data.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I would assume they'd moderate it for misrepresenting the data.

Hopefully it isn't based on their personal views as opposed to the context of the OP.

Even if the post is highly confrontational and leads to unvaccinated opinions, there needs to be a barrier in how much ones opinion supersedes the context. If every post that does not directly say, example, vaccines are bad need to be interpreted in light of the poster.

In these posts I see a lot of assumptions but in moderation those need to be put on hold since it's also about the members.

Misrepresenting data needs to be distinct breach.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hopefully it isn't based on their personal views as opposed to the context of the OP.

Even if the post is highly confrontational and leads to unvaccinated opinions, there needs to be a barrier in how much ones opinion supersedes the context. If every post that does not directly say, example, vaccines are bad need to be interpreted in light of the poster.

In these posts I see a lot of assumptions but in moderation those need to be put on hold since it's also about the members.

Misrepresenting data needs to be distinct breach.

That's the lovely thing about peer reviewed science. It's been through enough researchers and studies that personal opinions have been trimmed down.
It's not personal opinion that masks work, social distancing works, and vaccines work and are our key to getting to the other side of this as a society.

 

[Quagmire]

Hopefully it isn't based on their personal views as opposed to the context of the OP.

"Hopefully the staff aren't a bunch of dishonest losers who moderate in accordance with their own biases"

Yes let's all hope that.

Your faith in us never disappoints.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"Hopefully the staff aren't a bunch of dishonest losers who moderate in accordance with their own biases"

Yes let's all hope that.

Your faith in us never disappoints.

True: We all hope. But the clause of RF not encouraging members opinions would be good. Its neutral and puts it more in a legality view... If RF is based on the US. If not, I'm not sure.

Constructive critism. I haven't gone to a forum where they is joint consensus; which is good Unless you guys want me to sugar coat even though all members had been asked their opinion.

Your last comment incites a possible breach in RF rules. That I will not do.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That's the lovely thing about peer reviewed science. It's been through enough researchers and studies that personal opinions have been trimmed down.
It's not personal opinion that masks work, social distancing works, and vaccines work and are our key to getting to the other side of this as a society.

I'm giving my opinion as per asked by OP. My overall opinion is make the rules neutral. The closest if I chose from the poll is number 4.

If you want to talk about your comments you can post on the other thread.

 

[Moonjuice]

In that case, a lot of what you posted in this thread doesn't make any sense to me. For instance:



And to be honest I feel like the last half an hour I just spent trying to clarify things was pretty much a waste of time.

I mean, if you really understand the op, you could have just voted for number four, explained why, and left it at that.

I'll try to explain it better and please do not feel obligated to waste your time clarifying anything.

As I said in my first post, I do not think anyone's opinions should be censored. This is not because I do not understand the OP. I would like to select option #5, which is not an option. That would be do not block anyone's opinion (as long as they are following all the standard forum rules of course). Instead, leave it to the participants to evaluate the opinions and sources. We all can decide why those sources are or are not reputable and discuss it. Isn't that the purpose of forum, to get different perspectives? I realize you do not agree with my opinion, and you would prefer that I just vote for #4 and move on. I'd simply like to be free to form my own opinion.

I'm looking at the bigger picture.

1. Outside of Covid, could you imagine if every persons opinion on anything had to be first backed up by information, then evaluated by a group of people who get to determine if the source of information you base your decisions on is what THEY would consider reputable. I think this is a slippery slope. I'm talking about an individuals freedom to think for themselves, based on whatever information THEY believe is reputable.

2. The RF exists because people have different perspectives on religion - even those who follow the same religious texts do not agree on the all the content. So why don't we have a group to decide what sources of religious doctrine are "reputable" and what are not? We could end many religious discussions now.

"And now we are pretending that if the U.S. government says it, it can't be lies, propaganda or misinformation?"

We are talking about the US Government. The amount of misinformation spread by the government and its officials is overwhelming. Even with the best intentions, reputable institutions can get it wrong from time to time. Can't they?
If someone is going to convince me that the only place to look for reputable information is a U.S. government institution or it cannot be discussed, I'm going to have to object. Even the CDC, with Covid especially, has had to adjust recommendations as more information becomes available. Their recommendations have evolved - this is science. So what was once correct information, can now be considered misinformation. AND vise/versa, as I explained earlier with the Lab Leak Theory. Not long ago, you could be banned from social media platforms for even mentioning it could be accurate and now its the accepted theory for most people and no one is being banned for it. I have some personal experience with the CDC changing their NIOSH approval on a particular respirator mask that had a significant direct impact on me. It's a long story, so I'll spare the details.

Like I said, I'm not saying I disagree with the CDC's recommendations. I certainly understand misinformation is potentially killing people and spreading it can be dangerous. I also realize that living on this planet is a lot like a private forum: you are free to comply with the rules, or not participate. With Covid, you are free to protect yourself, or when you catch Covid and die, you are free to not participate in living. All that being said, this OP was intended to get our opinion on a rule or potential rule change and I am happy to be allowed to give it.

 

[Quagmire]

True: We all hope. But the clause of RF not encouraging members opinions would be good. Its neutral and puts it more in a legality view... If RF is based on the US. If not, I'm not sure.

Constructive critism. I haven't gone to a forum where they is joint consensus; which is good Unless you guys want me to sugar coat even though all members had been asked their opinion.

Your last comment incites a possible breach in RF rules. That I will not do.

Holding yourself accountable for your own actions is not a rule of violation.

Just so you know

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Holding yourself accountable for your own actions is not a rule of violation.

Just so you know

This type of conversation leads to a breach in RF rules. The OP asked my opinion. There it is.

 

[Quagmire]

I'll try to explain it better and please do not feel obligated to waste your time clarifying anything.

As I said in my first post, I do not think anyone's opinions should be censored. This is not because I do not understand the OP. I would like to select option #5, which is not an option. That would be do not block anyone's opinion

That would be option 3.

(as long as they are following all the standard forum rules of course). Instead, leave it to the participants to evaluate the opinions and sources. We all can decide why those sources are or are not reputable and discuss it. Isn't that the purpose of forum, to get different perspectives? I realize you do not agree with my opinion, and you would prefer that I just vote for #4 and move on.

I don't care how you vote. The only reason I suggested option 4 is because you seemed to be agreeing with it.

I'd simply like to be free to form my own opinion.

I'm looking at the bigger picture.

1. Outside of Covid, could you imagine if every persons opinion on anything had to be first backed up by information, then evaluated by a group of people who get to determine if the source of information you base your decisions on is what THEY would consider reputable. I think this is a slippery slope. I'm talking about an individuals freedom to think for themselves, based on whatever information THEY believe is reputable.

2. The RF exists because people have different perspectives on religion - even those who follow the same religious texts do not agree on the all the content. So why don't we have a group to decide what sources of religious doctrine are "reputable" and what are not? We could end many religious discussions now.

"And now we are pretending that if the U.S. government says it, it can't be lies, propaganda or misinformation?"

We are talking about the US Government. The amount of misinformation spread by the government and its officials is overwhelming. Even with the best intentions, reputable institutions can get it wrong from time to time. Can't they?
If someone is going to convince me that the only place to look for reputable information is a U.S. government institution or it cannot be discussed, I'm going to have to object. Even the CDC, with Covid especially, has had to adjust recommendations as more information becomes available. Their recommendations have evolved - this is science. So what was once correct information, can now be considered misinformation. AND vise/versa, as I explained earlier with the Lab Leak Theory. Not long ago, you could be banned from social media platforms for even mentioning it could be accurate and now its the accepted theory for most people and no one is being banned for it. I have some personal experience with the CDC changing their NIOSH approval on a particular respirator mask that had a significant direct impact on me. It's a long story, so I'll spare the details.

Like I said, I'm not saying I disagree with the CDC's recommendations. I certainly understand misinformation is potentially killing people and spreading it can be dangerous. I also realize that living on this planet is a lot like a private forum: you are free to comply with the rules, or not participate. With Covid, you are free to protect yourself, or when you catch Covid and die, you are free to not participate in living. All that being said, this OP was intended to get our opinion on a rule or potential rule change and I am happy to be allowed to give it.

Ok, we're just going in circles now: seems to me you're not saying anything you haven't already said and that I haven't already responded to so I don't see the point.

If you have any more questions or comments it would be best if you directed them at someone else.

 

[Quagmire]

This type of conversation leads to a breach in RF rules. The OP asked my opinion. There it is.

Yup, there it is.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'll try to explain it better and please do not feel obligated to waste your time clarifying anything.

As I said in my first post, I do not think anyone's opinions should be censored. This is not because I do not understand the OP. I would like to select option #5, which is not an option. That would be do not block anyone's opinion (as long as they are following all the standard forum rules of course). Instead, leave it to the participants to evaluate the opinions and sources. We all can decide why those sources are or are not reputable and discuss it. Isn't that the purpose of forum, to get different perspectives? I realize you do not agree with my opinion, and you would prefer that I just vote for #4 and move on. I'd simply like to be free to form my own opinion.

I'm looking at the bigger picture.

1. Outside of Covid, could you imagine if every persons opinion on anything had to be first backed up by information, then evaluated by a group of people who get to determine if the source of information you base your decisions on is what THEY would consider reputable. I think this is a slippery slope. I'm talking about an individuals freedom to think for themselves, based on whatever information THEY believe is reputable.

2. The RF exists because people have different perspectives on religion - even those who follow the same religious texts do not agree on the all the content. So why don't we have a group to decide what sources of religious doctrine are "reputable" and what are not? We could end many religious discussions now.

"And now we are pretending that if the U.S. government says it, it can't be lies, propaganda or misinformation?"

We are talking about the US Government. The amount of misinformation spread by the government and its officials is overwhelming. Even with the best intentions, reputable institutions can get it wrong from time to time. Can't they?
If someone is going to convince me that the only place to look for reputable information is a U.S. government institution or it cannot be discussed, I'm going to have to object. Even the CDC, with Covid especially, has had to adjust recommendations as more information becomes available. Their recommendations have evolved - this is science. So what was once correct information, can now be considered misinformation. AND vise/versa, as I explained earlier with the Lab Leak Theory. Not long ago, you could be banned from social media platforms for even mentioning it could be accurate and now its the accepted theory for most people and no one is being banned for it. I have some personal experience with the CDC changing their NIOSH approval on a particular respirator mask that had a significant direct impact on me. It's a long story, so I'll spare the details.

Like I said, I'm not saying I disagree with the CDC's recommendations. I certainly understand misinformation is potentially killing people and spreading it can be dangerous. I also realize that living on this planet is a lot like a private forum: you are free to comply with the rules, or not participate. With Covid, you are free to protect yourself, or when you catch Covid and die, you are free to not participate in living. All that being said, this OP was intended to get our opinion on a rule or potential rule change and I am happy to be allowed to give it.

The core difference between COVID and the other topics you mentioned (such as religion) is that misinformation about the latter can't kill someone or lead to someone's infecting others with a potentially severe or fatal disease.

I explained in earlier responses why the staff don't consider COVID misinformation to be in accordance with the forum's mission statement or the climate that we wish to foster on RF. You can review my answer in post #62 for further details of that stance.

Regarding your point on the U.S. government, we don't consider the CDC or the U.S. government to be the only reputable source for COVID information, nor is information contradicting any of its stances a violation of the new policy so long as said information is peer-reviewed and from a reputable source as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Hopefully the staff aren't a bunch of dishonest losers who moderate in accordance with their own biases"

As the official Drool Soaker Upper, I can
say with authority that staff are not losers.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

As the official Drool Soaker Upper, I can
say with authority that staff are not losers.

No. We are all human though.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. We are all human though.

I'm not going that far.

 

[SalixIncendium]

**MOD POST**
​

The RF staff would like to thank everyone for their contributions in the thread comments. We are now closing the thread to further replies, as we have gathered the information we needed from them. However, voting will remain open until Wednesday, 9/22/2021, to ensure that as many members as possible have voted in the poll.