Dealing with wind-up merchants

[smudge]

I'm relatively new around here so excuse me if I'm speaking out of turn.
It seems to me there is a problem with trouble makers, trolls, wind up merchants and a few who have no desire to debate but who make provocative statements purely to cause annoyance and disrupt the forum.
I am aware that free speech and open debate is vital and precious. Especially in a forum such as this. It also seems to me that it is counter productive to allow these posts to continue for as long as they often do.
Sometimes trying to debate nonsense with those promoting it (but uninterested in genuine debate) actually just gives credence to nonsense.

Would it be an idea to have something like a 5 points and you are out system? Say, five senior members respond to a post as 'Wind-up' and that's it. Thread over.

Just a thought....

[Admin]

Would it be an idea to have something like a 5 points and you are out system? Say, five senior members respond to a post as 'Wind-up' and that's it. Thread over.

That's actually pretty much how we operate anyway. If a poster gets overly annoying, members just let me know they've had enough and I'll ban them or restrict their posting rights to the junk forum.

We tend not to worry too much about idiocy if it's kept in one appropriate place - such as a conspiracy nut posting their stupid ideas in a conspiracy theory thread - but if it spills out to other areas, it's quickly dealt with.

[newatheist]

That's actually pretty much how we operate anyway. If a poster gets overly annoying, members just let me know they've had enough and I'll ban them or restrict their posting rights to the junk forum.

We tend not to worry too much about idiocy if it's kept in one appropriate place - such as a conspiracy nut posting their stupid ideas in a conspiracy theory thread - but if it spills out to other areas, it's quickly dealt with.

Have you thought about making the spam/junk thread public yet? I think it would be good reading material for lurkers and for people who just happen to bump into them.

[Pebble]

I am aware that free speech and open debate is vital and precious. Especially in a forum such as this.
Sometimes trying to debate nonsense with those promoting it (but uninterested in genuine debate) actually just gives credence to nonsense.

..

I think that debate is the life blood of this forum. Among genuine skeptics, debate focuses on areas where there is little evidence, only opinion - for example religion, the arts, alternate views of reality and to some extent politics. Where the evidence is available, there is a tendency to state the evidence with little exploration.
The contribution of believers and those who truly do not understand, is to as the really important questions that require a real analysis of what the evidence does or does not support. When new, almost all are given the benefit of the doubt, and work is undertaken to answer their questions fully. After this point those who fail to understand the evidence, even when fully explained, cause irritation and people get wearysome and refuse to engage further - hence responses become more sarcastic.
Now the beneficial aspect of this interaction, is the analysis of the evidence early in such encounters. One could argue to ban such individuals once this beneficial phase is over, however, where their destructive activity affects only the thread dealing with their main fallacious belief - then this is accepted in context (anyone reading the interaction can readilty see their arguments have been thoroughly dealt with).
Their failure to accept the weight of evidence is by now known, so any attempt to destroy unrelated threads is where the line is drawn.

[bryan]

When new, almost all are given the benefit of the doubt, and work is undertaken to answer their questions fully. After this point those who fail to understand the evidence, even when fully explained, cause irritation and people get wearysome and refuse to engage further - hence responses become more sarcastic.

That's an idealised account of the procedure. What actually happens is this: When new, anybody asking awkward questions is told to "fuck off" or is called "a lying piece of shit". This behaviour is designed to provoke the newbie into replying in a similar fashion and hopefully even outplaying the regulars at their own game, which inevitably earns a ban. The few sceptics (as opposed to "skeptics") who make it past these initial stages are then treated more reasonably on the face of it, but are subjected to endless diversions and arguments based on every logical fallacy under the sun. At this stage, most people lose faith in humanity as a whole.

As for what happens to someone who could survive all that and still come out on top, we'll have to wait and see. . .

[smudge]

That's actually pretty much how we operate anyway. If a poster gets overly annoying, members just let me know they've had enough and I'll ban them or restrict their posting rights to the junk forum.

We tend not to worry too much about idiocy if it's kept in one appropriate place - such as a conspiracy nut posting their stupid ideas in a conspiracy theory thread - but if it spills out to other areas, it's quickly dealt with.

Thanks for the clarification John.

[PaulW99]

As for what happens to someone who could survive all that and still come out on top, we'll have to wait and see. . .

I don't think you'll "come out on top" if this is the level of your discourse:

bryan:
I came back recently to correct some misrepresentations of the thread made by the Croydon Liar

Croydon Bob:
What misrepresentations did I make and how did you correct them?

bryan:
I was talking about "the Croydon Liar" but you're [sic] name is "Croydon Bob". That means I didn't claim you made any misrepresentations.

Croydon Bob:
So who did you mean by "Croydon Liar" then?

bryan:
I meant you. I thought that would have been obvious!

[Pebble]

What makes you so certain the hijackers boarded the planes? Have you seen their names on the flight manifests? Have you seen the ticket stubs or boarding passes? Have you seen CCTV footage of the hijackers checking in at the airports in question? Have you seen transcripts of witness statements from the check-in staff? Please provide links or references.

http://www.911myths.com/html/no_hija...manifests.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/hanjour_video.html


http://debunk911myths.org/t/images/a...Manifest_a.jpg
http://debunk911myths.org/t/images/b...Manifest_b.jpg
http://debunk911myths.org/t/images/6...Manifest_c.jpg
http://debunk911myths.org/t/images/f...Manifest_a.jpg
http://debunk911myths.org/t/images/8...Manifest_a.jpg
http://debunk911myths.org/t/images/3...Manifest_b.jpg
http://debunk911myths.org/t/images/1...Manifest_a.jpg

http://debunk911myths.org/topics/Hijackers

What evidence do you have, Bryan, to demonstrate that the hijackers did not board the planes?

SimonC,

(I tried to quote you but I'm not allowed to post links till I've got 15 posts under my belt)


Here's the sum total of the evidence you've presented:

1. An article on the Boston Globe's website two days after 9/11, saying they had "obtained a copy of the complete manifest list of the planes hijacked from Boston". The document was received via fax, and because it had been scanned and saved as a jpeg, it's of such low quality that there wouldn't be any point in reproducing it. It's not clear which organisation sent the fax.

2. Photos of "what looked like a passenger manifest" in a book on the 9/11 hijackers by an author who is considered by a debunking site to be "an entirely trustworthy source" The documents were obtained from the FBI.

3. A still shot from a CCTV camera of Hani Hanjour that doesn't even look like the man.

4. A flash applet exhibited at the Moussaoui trial.


And here are a few questions that critical thinkers should be asking:

1. Why do the FBI or the airport authorities choose to release documents to a single newspaper or a single author?

2. Why haven't we seen actual video footage of the hijackers passing through the airports?

3. Why was a flash applet used as evidence at a high-profile terrorism trial, rather than physical evidence?

4. Why were the airport check-in staff not required to make statements to the 9/11 Commission?




The suspicious lack of evidence to show that the hijackers DID board the planes suggests that they DIDN'T board the planes.




Any self-respecting critical thinker should recognise this as an extreme case of begging the question.

Yes,

You've seen the links and references. Your argument now changes from the snidely insinuated "such evidence doesn't exist" to the even more snidely insinuated "such evidence has been faked"

What evidence have you got that there is a coverup operation involving many thougsands of independent investigators?

It's a very serious accusation you're making.

That's an idealised account of the procedure. What actually happens is this: When new, anybody asking awkward questions is told to "fuck off" or is called "a lying piece of shit". This behaviour is designed to provoke the newbie into replying in a similar fashion and hopefully even outplaying the regulars at their own game, which inevitably earns a ban. The few sceptics (as opposed to "skeptics") who make it past these initial stages are then treated more reasonably on the face of it, but are subjected to endless diversions and arguments based on every logical fallacy under the sun. At this stage, most people lose faith in humanity as a whole.

As for what happens to someone who could survive all that and still come out on top, we'll have to wait and see. . .

Clearly you are not deducing from experience here!

[bryan]

Clearly you are not deducing from experience here!

No, I was inducing from my experience and the experience of every other truther or climate change sceptic I've seen post here.

[bryan]

I don't think you'll "come out on top" if this is the level of your discourse:

bryan:
I came back recently to correct some misrepresentations of the thread made by the Croydon Liar

Croydon Bob:
What misrepresentations did I make and how did you correct them?

bryan:
I was talking about "the Croydon Liar" but you're [sic] name is "Croydon Bob". That means I didn't claim you made any misrepresentations.

Croydon Bob:
So who did you mean by "Croydon Liar" then?

bryan:
I meant you. I thought that would have been obvious!

Think about it critically in terms of Bob's interpretation of the fundamental 'argument'. I did mean Bob, but I didn't claim he made any representations.

[Pebble]

No, I was inducing from my experience and the experience of every other truther or climate change sceptic I've seen post here.

At least you are entirely consistent when it comes to your treatment of evidence, whether the issue is personal or not your show a complete lack of rigour.

[PaulW99]

Think about it critically in terms of Bob's interpretation of the fundamental 'argument'. I did mean Bob, but I didn't claim he made any representations.

Hopeless

[bryan]

Hopeless

We can always use my interpretation, but that would mean you admitting I was right all along.

[PaulW99]

We can always use my interpretation, but that would mean you admitting I was right all along.

Right about what??

[Drop Bear]

@Paul

I like it here so far. I liked seeing someone banned recently for being an annoying and disruptive twat.

I spend a lot of time on forums,currently posting on four. I have never been banned but have got the hump and left a couple.

Some broad observations and personal rules of thumb:

Most moderators bend over backwards to be fair and to take the reasonable wishes and suggestions of members into consideration. However,they are not obliged to do so. There are no rights, only privileges. Most internet forums are not democracies ,they are private concerns where the owners can [and do] arbitrarily set any rules they choose..

Every forum I've joined has a dominant clique of regulars and it's own peculiar culture. It behooves one to realise that it is better to try to fit in rather than to arrive with expectations of privilege and/or accommodation.


I do not engage in flame wars nor usually argue unless a topic is important to me. Most are not.

I try to avoid upsetting moderators,not always with complete success.

To be blunt; this is an internet forum where I come for some fun and mental stimulation.When I begin to take it seriously by say getting angry or overcome with a bout of petulance or precious hurt feelings, I leave and find another forum.That usually takes about 15 minutes.