Clarification and Addendum to the "No Insults" Rule

[dank69]

...



This is not a free-for-all on what's wrong with P&N. We already had a thread on that. Certain priorities were voted on. Right now this is just a discussion about personal insults.

Also, your example is ridiculous. You realize there are just about zero political or news issues that are as simple as basic arithmetic? Also, your own example shows that insulting accomplishes nothing anyway.

It's called a simple example to illustrate a concept. How about a simple definition of a word? Is that simple enough for you? Yet we get threads all the time with 20 pages debating the definition of a word. Would it have been better if I replaced 2+2=4 with black=black and replaced 2+2=5 with black=white? Does it make sense to you now? Does that pass muster for you?

Debate insults all you want. They are not the problem and never were. Willful ignorance is the problem and always has been.

 

[Infohawk]

Debate insults all you want.

Great, because that's the topic of this thread.

 

[LunarRay]

Help how? They don't want you to report anything unless you're the one being insulted.

Help in any regard possible! My comment was general and not directional toward nor intended to be conflicting with anything anyone posted previously.

I sense a frustration in Idontcare's current posting... as if he's said something and that is being met with doubt, argument and continued disapproval. Given the tone and the possibility that non-compliance - a continued need for Moderation time devoted to this place - will be met with termination of the sub-forum. I'd want to simply say, "Ok", and move on and maybe ask, "OK.. how else can we help".

I gave my opinion in the other thread and perhaps also here and although he didn't address my post his other posts indicated that Anand does not favor having an unmoderated 'hell' sub-forum... so, OK fine.

 

[fskimospy]

Projo got PMs from the mods, which fits into my point nicely. When you see "improvement" it's usually because the mods got involved behind the scenes, not because people are calling someone a jerk.

On what basis are you claiming that Pro-Jo's posting behavior changed due to moderation?

Regardless the whole idea that P&N could be cleaned up by policing personal attacks is hilariously naive. The whole principle of administering that way was stupid to begin with, but people voted for it.

It seems by this point enough people have realized what a dumb idea it was, so hopefully in a week or two it goes away.

 

[cybrsage]

It was a good idea and, had there been enough non-biased mods (say, triple the current number of mods), then we would have seen personal attacks stop (or those using them vanish).

Since there are not enough mods to police the huge number of personal attacks committed against the rules, the new rules failed.

 

[dank69]

...

Also, your example is ridiculous. You realize there are just about zero political or news issues that are as simple as basic arithmetic? Also, your own example shows that insulting accomplishes nothing anyway.

Speaking of political issues that are simple as basic arithmetic, see this thread where a brand new troll has been told several times that federal spending does not include state and local spending but he continues to insist that it does.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is a topic I find intriguing to contemplate, and I don't take the mere discussion of it as being a mod challenge or callout, so discuss away (without turning it into a mod-callout thread). I'd love to hear people's ideas and thoughts on this matter. It is a serious matter, but it is one that outstrips my own meager cerebral faculty.

The thought crossed my mind that well, what, how shall I express this, that as above above so below, that a problem with a forum is a problem with the world, that our conflicts and struggles are within us and express wherever we look. If we can't solve the problems of the world, we can't solve them here either. Why? Personally, I believe the answer is that we are motivated not to.

As Mulla Nasruden once discovered when fatigued from carrying a load of chickens on his head and put them down and let them out, walked away and noticed they didn't follow remarked, "How is it that you know when the sun is coming up, but you can't figure out where I am going?

So the thought I had is this: How the liberal mind and the conservative mind relate in a political setting they also relate in a forum and if we can understand the dominant motivating factors of each kind of mind, not any differences, and try to understand their implications, we will to some degree have a better understanding of what we face here.

Naturally, this would be a means of analysis that appeals to me because I am interested in such things and may not be of any interest to others. In other words, this may be only a way, maybe just one way, a liberal might seek understanding.

I would ask two questions. What kinds of motivations would drive a liberal in a forum and what kinds of motivations would drive a conservative?

The first thought that occurred to me when I began to write this is that Conservatives are Authoritarian, relatively speaking compared to liberals.

Is this a liberal bias? Certainly I think a case can be made that a lot of liberals can be quite authoritarian. So we can leave this assumption open to debate, but I want to look at one implication, if in fact it is true that conservatives are generally of an authoritarian stripe.

Authoritarians like rules and they like punishment for those who do not follow them. They tend to look at rules as absolutes and function best when they feel they are on the side of the authorities. They are enforcer types. They will want to run a forum with an iron fist and see folk banned etc, but do they see the rules through colored lenses?

Having a stronger perhaps even a religious belief in rules, they are also going to be more powerfully motivated not to notice when they break them due to a need to see themselves on the side of authority. They, I would suggest, therefore, are going to have a higher motivation to act like hypocrites.

This would suggest to me that a conservative will see a mod as unbiased when he applies the rules to liberals but not himself, all the while maintaining complete unconsciousness of this.

So, that is just a start, I think, from where this analysis can go. Maybe some others may wish to comment on how they see differences between conservatives and liberals affecting forum expectations......

 

[CrackRabbit]

Debate insults all you want. They are not the problem and never were. Willful ignorance is the problem and always has been.

THIS. THIS, THIS, AND THIS.

I think we are slowly getting to the point where the trolls are taking over and the mods will stand by and do nothing as to not seem biased.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Debate insults all you want. They are not the problem and never were. Willful ignorance is the problem and always has been.

ignorance according to who??
I`m right..well your just ignorant??? hmmmm......

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I'd love to see a rule where people acutally have to defend their posts with real reasons.

Most threads by our trolls go something like this:

OP: 2+2=5 (or something equally ridiculous)
Everyone else: Um, no
OP: yup, y'all are wrong
Everyone: <post proofs, links, evidence> several times
OP: naw uh, y'all are cowards

They just troll along, never forced to present anything. While some things are inherently debatable (I like person A over person B), some things are not debatable because they have been proven one way or another. But even in things that are debatable, the trolls just post outrageous crap and just move on when confronted, and post something outrageous in another thread.

But the trolls ignore this, and have never been forced to defend their posts. We need to make posters have to defend their thoughts, it would really cut down on troll posts and increase the SNR here.

 

[dank69]

ignorance according to who??
I`m right..well your just ignorant??? hmmmm......

I'm not talking about opinions. I'm talking about facts and people's refusal to acknowledge them.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'd love to see a rule where people acutally have to defend their posts with real reasons.

Most threads by our trolls go something like this:

OP: 2+2=5 (or something equally ridiculous)
Everyone else: Um, no
OP: yup, y'all are wrong
Everyone: <post proofs, links, evidence> several times
OP: naw uh, y'all are cowards

They just troll along, never forced to present anything. While some things are inherently debatable (I like person A over person B), some things are not debatable because they have been proven one way or another. But even in things that are debatable, the trolls just post outrageous crap and just move on when confronted, and post something outrageous in another thread.

But the trolls ignore this, and have never been forced to defend their posts. We need to make posters have to defend their thoughts, it would really cut down on troll posts and increase the SNR here.

Nice

 

[umbrella39]

THIS. THIS, THIS, AND THIS.

I think we are slowly getting to the point where the trolls are taking over and the mods will stand by and do nothing as to not seem biased.

This 110% Anyone who thinks P&N is steadily declining due to insults needs a reality check... it is becoming ruined by the constant influx of overt Trolls (new, ex-banned, or alt) who serve no other purpose than to anonymously stir shit and flood the forum with their inane broad generalizations. I find it far more abhorrent to read the constant broad brush attacks on all Libtards than to read someone individually called an asshole...

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

This 110% Anyone who thinks P&N is steadily declining due to insults needs a reality check... it is becoming ruined by the constant influx of overt Trolls (new, ex-banned, or alt) who serve no other purpose than to anonymously stir shit and flood the forum with their inane broad generalizations. I find it far more abhorrent to read the constant broad brush attacks on all Libtards than to read someone individually called an asshole...

++

Prevent the trolls from trolling, and the insults will go away on their own.

 

[Infohawk]

On what basis are you claiming that Pro-Jo's posting behavior changed due to moderation?

I probably shouldn't go into details, but you can also look at the fact that he's currently banned...

 

[fskimospy]

I probably shouldn't go into details, but you can also look at the fact that he's currently banned...

While I'm not aware of whatever circumstances caused him to be banned, in my opinion his behavior had generally become considerably better than it used to be.

 

[Idontcare]

++

Prevent the trolls from trolling, and the insults will go away on their own.

This is true.

But of all the topics to moderate, attempting to distinguish between a troll and a genuinely misguided individual with a unique political bent in a P&N forum is impossible.

What seems like a troll to one person can come across to another as just the difference of political leanings.

US politics may be a 2-party system, but the people in this forum do not cleanly break into two political camps.

The challenge here is no different than that in real life - you can't legislate morality, you can merely define it and enforce it at some arbitrary threshold.

I can't make people be nice to each other. People have to want to be nice to each other before any kind of "no insults" rule has any meaning.

The problem as I see it is that we do have two schools of thought here in P&N, we have what I call the "be polite" camp and then we have the "be rowdy" camp.

The "be polite" camp wants the forum to be civil, cordial, with respectful conversations and so on. And if that means 40% of the membership ends up leaving because they can't adapt and comply to such an environment then so be it. (I am projecting the position of the "be polite" camp in that statement)

Likewise the "be rowdy" camp wants the forum to be rowdy, brash, with emotionally charged conversations and so on. And if that means 40% of the membership ends up leaving because they can't come to terms with such insensitive language being used around them then so be it. (I am projecting the position of the "be rowdy" camp in that statement)

The challenge for the moderators is "is there a middle-ground that retains both camps and forges a community that finds itself less at odds with itself?".

And that is where we are at today.

No we aren't entertaining the idea of closing this subforum, far from it.

But yes, the whole idea of the Open Mic threads and the community votes on rules and so on was as much to help us mods figure out what this subforum needs as it was to help the community have a much needed conversation within itself regarding what it values and what it wants to be.

As mods, the easy choice is to give in to either camp and then watch the other camp bleed members (either out of disgust over the forum being so unruly, or out of rowdy members getting themselves banned in time) until the forum becomes mono-cultural Rwanda style.

The more arduous path is the one we've embarked upon, trying different ways to open the dialogue (i.e. to moderate in the truest sense of the meaning of the word) between these two disparate schools of thought in hopes that an organically grown and cultivated idea would come forth.

That opportunity still lies in front of you all. No doors have been closed, setting aside my attempts at motivational rhetoric of the past, but we do very much need to do something different because what we have done so far isn't really working for anyone.

I am not married to the idea the insults can only be reported by the person being insulted. That was an idea that was brought to me that seemed like a brilliant way to help filter out the false reports. And it does accomplish that, but it comes with the tradeoff of greatly watering down the strength of a community-backed "no insult" rule when the community no longer is allowed to report the violations.

So where do we go from here?

 

[dmcowen674]

So where do we go from here?

Lawmakers are looking into it.

Ultimately they will make the decisions for the boards.

They always do.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

But of all the topics to moderate, attempting to distinguish between a troll and a genuinely misguided individual with a unique political bent in a P&N forum is impossible.

What seems like a troll to one person can come across to another as just the difference of political leanings.

US politics may be a 2-party system, but the people in this forum do not cleanly break into two political camps.

In some cases, I agree. Certainly, there are plenty of areas where people can agree to disagree. Especially in politics. But there are also plenty of areas where posters are clearly trolling. You can present all the proof in the world, and they just flip you off (metaphorically speaking) and continue to lie. That isn't a difference of opinion, that is just lying and trolling.

And when people post hundreds or thousands of the same style posts in P&N, it clearly goes from misguided to just plain PITA (for us) trolling.

Saying you don't like Obama (or Bush) is fine. Saying you hate Bush because of death camps and that he masterminded 9/11 isn't (or saying Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya). These are factually untrue. Believing them for a while is one thing, believing them after posters post real evidence showing it to be untrue is not. Blaming them for stuff that they never did is usually easy to document, but most trolls refuse to believe. Than what are we supposed to do? The old saying "a lie repeated becomes the truth" means that the if trolls post it enough times, some honest people will begin to believe it, and that is a disservice to people that genuinely don't know.

The challenge here is no different than that in real life - you can't legislate morality, you can merely define it and enforce it at some arbitrary threshold.

What about the more verifiable troll posts? We can prove trolls wrong, but they are still free to continue to lie. There is no rule here to mandate a defense of your posts, several trolls post (I would say believe, but honestly I think they don't believe it, they just post it for fun) 100% factually wrong things, and continue to post them over and over, despite having been proved wrong. This shouldn't be allowed.

Likewise the "be rowdy" camp wants the forum to be rowdy, brash, with emotionally charged conversations and so on. And if that means 40% of the membership ends up leaving because they can't come to terms with such insensitive language being used around them then so be it. (I am projecting the position of the "be rowdy" camp in that statement)

I would argue that there is a big difference between "rowdy" and trolling. There are people that post provocative items, but most people are just trolling, and their history quickly makes them stand out. "Obummer" comments, or "bobo" comments are just plain trolling and insulting, with no pretense of debate. Not to mention the outright lies that are posted, which should never be allowed or accepted.

The challenge for the moderators is "is there a middle-ground that retains both camps and forges a community that finds itself less at odds with itself?".

I understand, but what is wrong with making people provide a defense of their posts? If someone wants to say " I hate X", make them provide real reasons. If not, lock it up. Too many locks? Suspend them. Obviously not all threads would be like this, but a fair amount would be.

As mods, the easy choice is to give in to either camp and then watch the other camp bleed members (either out of disgust over the forum being so unruly, or out of rowdy members getting themselves banned in time) until the forum becomes mono-cultural Rwanda style.

I agree with the poster above, that the trolls are winning. Until they have to justify their posts, they will continue trolling since they are allowed to. Make them defend their posts, and they will either eventually give up and leave, or learn to actually debate in good faith. The side affect will be less insults as well. It is a grey area, but we have so many trolls that are far out of the grey and maxed at one end of the spectrum it wouldn't be too hard.

It is very frustrating to me, and I would imagine a lot of posters, that we take the time to research and find links/evidence/proof that support or claim our ideas and posts, and the trolls just do a hand-wave and ignore it, and continue to lie. I've seen it a bunch here. Total 100% factually untrue statements, repeated over and over, and no one can do a thing about it. You can post proof all day long, but it gets ignored.

Why should people be allowed to outright lie? In real life, those people that lie at a job get fired. They lie with friends, most likely, they will lose their friends, or at least the ones that don't want to put up with it.Lie to a police officer, or judge, good luck with that. Here, they can spam lies over and over with no consequences. Even politicians, when they lie, will sometimes get called out and raked over the coals for lying. I think most people support politicians being called on the carpet to answer for their lies, why should this forum be different?

 

[Moonbeam]

So where do we go from here?

Maybe we could look for consensus on some things. I looked on the web for the answer to this question about the nature of insults:
----------------------------------------
Why do people resort to insults when arguing politics?

Example. Democrats calling Republicans stupid just because they disagree with them, or the reverse. Why is any opinion that is different immediately attacked? Why can't people argue politics without resorting to insults? Republicans calling Democrats un-american and Democrats calling Repubicans ignorant hicks or saying they are bought by the insurance companies. Like with Obama why can't people argue against his policies instead of making stuff up like "Obama is a Muslim", "Obama wasn't born here". Stuff like that, If you don't like someones politics argue politics why resort to insults?
2 years ago

Fizzy Bubbler resurrected!
--------------------

Here was the answer given:
--------------------------
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Most often when people resort to calling me names it is because they have no valid argument left. One of the biggest flaws in humanity as a whole is that we will argue to the death something that we believe even if all the evidence points to you being wrong. Emotion takes over and begins to dictate your actions since facts will no longer support your argument and next thing you know your resorting to insults. It happens to us all at times. It's difficult to accept your wrong. Especially if it's something you've believed for a long time.
--------------------

Do people think this is true regardless of what camp you may be in? Is this a universal? If it is then we can point to it as a community given truth and when folk resort to insults we can community identify them as folk who are simply wrong and won't admit it, the act of simple insult being a public statement group agreed that you know your are wrong and we do too.

Perhaps this would not work if one side feels they abuse more than the other despite the fact that neither side seems to think itself guilty of anything.

What we might do with such an agreed upon standard, this or some other, would be the next step. Maybe we could have a sticky thread with the names of famous offenders, require public apologies, etc, some kind of consequence to help folk to learn better behavior.

 

[dmcowen674]

Why should people be allowed to outright lie? In real life, those people that lie at a job get fired. They lie with friends, most likely, they will lose their friends, or at least the ones that don't want to put up with it.Lie to a police officer, or judge, good luck with that. Here, they can spam lies over and over with no consequences. Even politicians, when they lie, will sometimes get called out and raked over the coals for lying. I think most people support politicians being called on the carpet to answer for their lies, why should this forum be different?

You really expect a change when people get away with saying things are down when you show proof it is up?

I think Revisionist history was born and bred here and as evidenced certainly flourishing.

Hell never mind re-visioned, it's real time.

 

[Idontcare]

In some cases, I agree. Certainly, there are plenty of areas where people can agree to disagree. Especially in politics. But there are also plenty of areas where posters are clearly trolling. You can present all the proof in the world, and they just flip you off (metaphorically speaking) and continue to lie. That isn't a difference of opinion, that is just lying and trolling.

And when people post hundreds or thousands of the same style posts in P&N, it clearly goes from misguided to just plain PITA (for us) trolling.

Saying you don't like Obama (or Bush) is fine. Saying you hate Bush because of death camps and that he masterminded 9/11 isn't (or saying Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya). These are factually untrue. Believing them for a while is one thing, believing them after posters post real evidence showing it to be untrue is not. Blaming them for stuff that they never did is usually easy to document, but most trolls refuse to believe. Than what are we supposed to do? The old saying "a lie repeated becomes the truth" means that the if trolls post it enough times, some honest people will begin to believe it, and that is a disservice to people that genuinely don't know.



What about the more verifiable troll posts? We can prove trolls wrong, but they are still free to continue to lie. There is no rule here to mandate a defense of your posts, several trolls post (I would say believe, but honestly I think they don't believe it, they just post it for fun) 100% factually wrong things, and continue to post them over and over, despite having been proved wrong. This shouldn't be allowed.



I would argue that there is a big difference between "rowdy" and trolling. There are people that post provocative items, but most people are just trolling, and their history quickly makes them stand out. "Obummer" comments, or "bobo" comments are just plain trolling and insulting, with no pretense of debate. Not to mention the outright lies that are posted, which should never be allowed or accepted.



I understand, but what is wrong with making people provide a defense of their posts? If someone wants to say " I hate X", make them provide real reasons. If not, lock it up. Too many locks? Suspend them. Obviously not all threads would be like this, but a fair amount would be.



I agree with the poster above, that the trolls are winning. Until they have to justify their posts, they will continue trolling since they are allowed to. Make them defend their posts, and they will either eventually give up and leave, or learn to actually debate in good faith. The side affect will be less insults as well. It is a grey area, but we have so many trolls that are far out of the grey and maxed at one end of the spectrum it wouldn't be too hard.

It is very frustrating to me, and I would imagine a lot of posters, that we take the time to research and find links/evidence/proof that support or claim our ideas and posts, and the trolls just do a hand-wave and ignore it, and continue to lie. I've seen it a bunch here. Total 100% factually untrue statements, repeated over and over, and no one can do a thing about it. You can post proof all day long, but it gets ignored.

Why should people be allowed to outright lie? In real life, those people that lie at a job get fired. They lie with friends, most likely, they will lose their friends, or at least the ones that don't want to put up with it.Lie to a police officer, or judge, good luck with that. Here, they can spam lies over and over with no consequences. Even politicians, when they lie, will sometimes get called out and raked over the coals for lying. I think most people support politicians being called on the carpet to answer for their lies, why should this forum be different?

This happens all the time, and I understand why, when you care about something, and care passionately about it, then it can become so important to the individual that it takes on a life of its own.

Trolls thrive on that, "don't feed the troll" is a phrase that was crafted for specific psychological reasons.

It takes two, that is how communication works, but you also have to know when it is time to step-down and stop the feeding. (not directed at you, making a generalized observation/statement in my post while building off of yours by way of quoting you).

^ the difficulty with P&N is that the subject matter of politics (and religion) drives people who are otherwise reasonable and measured into a state of passioned rebuttals and zero desire to yield or compromise on their own position and outlook on the topic of conversation.

This is human nature, it isn't going to change, and so given that we need to find a way that accommodates human nature without throwing the baby (that is human decency and civility) out with the bathwater (that is trolling).

 

[Idontcare]

Maybe we could look for consensus on some things. I looked on the web for the answer to this question about the nature of insults:
----------------------------------------
Why do people resort to insults when arguing politics?

Example. Democrats calling Republicans stupid just because they disagree with them, or the reverse. Why is any opinion that is different immediately attacked? Why can't people argue politics without resorting to insults? Republicans calling Democrats un-american and Democrats calling Repubicans ignorant hicks or saying they are bought by the insurance companies. Like with Obama why can't people argue against his policies instead of making stuff up like "Obama is a Muslim", "Obama wasn't born here". Stuff like that, If you don't like someones politics argue politics why resort to insults?
2 years ago

Fizzy Bubbler resurrected!
--------------------

Here was the answer given:
--------------------------
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Most often when people resort to calling me names it is because they have no valid argument left. One of the biggest flaws in humanity as a whole is that we will argue to the death something that we believe even if all the evidence points to you being wrong. Emotion takes over and begins to dictate your actions since facts will no longer support your argument and next thing you know your resorting to insults. It happens to us all at times. It's difficult to accept your wrong. Especially if it's something you've believed for a long time.
--------------------

Do people think this is true regardless of what camp you may be in? Is this a universal? If it is then we can point to it as a community given truth and when folk resort to insults we can community identify them as folk who are simply wrong and won't admit it, the act of simple insult being a public statement group agreed that you know your are wrong and we do too.

Perhaps this would not work if one side feels they abuse more than the other despite the fact that neither side seems to think itself guilty of anything.

What we might do with such an agreed upon standard, this or some other, would be the next step. Maybe we could have a sticky thread with the names of famous offenders, require public apologies, etc, some kind of consequence to help folk to learn better behavior.

There is one school of thought that views insults and personal attacks as one aspect of expressing disagreement, but also views it as the least effective form of disagreement.

Graham's hierarchy of disagreement is a decent embodiment of this school of thought.

Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.

The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.

If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:

u r a i love you!!!!!!!!!!​

But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like

The author is a self-important dilettante.​

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a i love you."

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:

Of course he would say that. He's a senator.​

This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

Now this hierarchy is captured in the infographic:

The thinking goes that lower levels in the hierarchy are less and less effective in communicating much of value.

Name calling is hardly a useful retort. Everyone recognizes this and yet people think it even if they know well enough to not type it.

At the same time we all appreciate a well constructed post, a DH6 caliber position statement or rebuttal. They are enjoyable to read as a thread lurker, and they can be the most intoxicating form of communication when it comes to actually swaying someone's opinion on a topic.

The question I come away with is "what value is there to come from censoring those individuals who operate at the DH0/DH1 mentality?"

We can all parse their posts, choose to ignore them, and move on to the higher quality DH3+ posts. By being DH0 they've already rendered their position in the discussion irrelevant, not a single individual is going to be swayed in the discussion by one person's DH0 rebuttal.

So what benefit is there in silencing the DH0?

 

[CallMeJoe]

...of all the topics to moderate, attempting to distinguish between a troll and a genuinely misguided individual with a unique political bent in a P&N forum is impossible...

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Some posters I see dismissed as blatant trolls or shills are just echoes of real conversations I hear regularly at work. One man's abject idiocy is another man's Inspired Truth.

 

[exdeath]

I'd love to see a rule where people acutally have to defend their posts with real reasons.

Most threads by our trolls go something like this:

OP: 2+2=5 (or something equally ridiculous)
Everyone else: Um, no
OP: yup, y'all are wrong
Everyone: <post proofs, links, evidence> several times
OP: naw uh, y'all are cowards

They just troll along, never forced to present anything. While some things are inherently debatable (I like person A over person B), some things are not debatable because they have been proven one way or another. But even in things that are debatable, the trolls just post outrageous crap and just move on when confronted, and post something outrageous in another thread.

But the trolls ignore this, and have never been forced to defend their posts. We need to make posters have to defend their thoughts, it would really cut down on troll posts and increase the SNR here.

Many topics in politics have no right or wrong answer and are purely subjective. Just two opposing and irreconcilable differences in philosophy.

For example, whether or not capital punishment is acceptable. That is purely an opinion of philosophy, there is no hard mathematical answer.