Discussion Thread Re: 8/3 No Insults Rule Amendment

[dank69]

Did you guys just suggest the ignore function is a substitute for forum rules?

I'll tell you now, it's not.

I think it was just the one person.

 

[Retro Rob]

Why is it that people who are supposed to be so mature can't figure out how to use the forum ignore function?

Yep - agreed. It's stops arguments at the source.

Cybrsage's a troll simply because he's a supreme bait artist....and you all keep biting and are reeled in and then want to call for a perma-ban.

If guys ignore/stop quoting & replying to troll posts, he may simply get disinterested and leave, or try harder and get banned on his own and the derailments will be more and more clear.

Keep supplying the ammo and he'll keep firing...

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Yep - agreed. It's stops arguments at the source.

Cybrsage's a troll simply because he's a supreme bait artist....and you all keep biting and are reeled in and then want to call for a perma-ban.

If guys ignore/stop quoting & replying to troll posts, he may simply get disinterested and leave, or try harder and get banned on his own and the derailments will be more and more clear.

Keep supplying the ammo and he'll keep firing...

This. I have a little ignore instruction manual posted in my sig for just this reason. You will find this place is a far more mature discussion board with just a couple or few people on ignore.

 

[cybrsage]

"Forgive me if I don't respond to your response. I'm not ignoring you. I just don't want to waste any more time on the worst troll this forum has ever know, Cybrsage."
--------------

Then I will not reply and it won't bother me. If what you say of cybrsage is true than it must also be true of me.

Still refusing to admit to your lie. Tsk tsk.

 

[Retro Rob]

This. I have a little ignore instruction manual posted in my sig for just this reason. You will find this place is a far more mature discussion board with just a couple or few people on ignore.

I agree.

I think it's shameful that mods/admins have to spoon-feed a bunch of supposed adults a list of rules/policies on forum decorum. On the other hand, we can disagree without being disagreeable, keeping in mind that what we say here is just our opinion 99% of the time.

 

[cybrsage]

Cybrsage's a troll simply because he's a supreme bait artist....and you all keep biting and are reeled in and then want to call for a perma-ban.

If guys ignore/stop quoting & replying to troll posts, he may simply get disinterested and leave, or try harder and get banned on his own and the derailments will be more and more clear.

Keep supplying the ammo and he'll keep firing...

Actually, I use a lot of ancient debate tactics and people seem to freak out over them. Aristotle is a great guide to awesome debate tactics, I highly recommend reading his works.

People tend to get very mad when they see their arguments easily ripped apart by a method made famous a few thousand years ago, such as reduction to absurdity. They then refuse to admit that reduction to absurdity is a valid debate tactic (Aristotle would debate them on that point, and win of course) and then whine and cry about it.

They simply cannot stand the fire but refuse to stop putting their hands on the hot stove...

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Actually, I use a lot of ancient debate tactics and people seem to freak out over them. Aristotle is a great guide to awesome debate tactics, I highly recommend reading his works.

People tend to get very mad when they see their arguments easily ripped apart by a method made famous a few thousand years ago, such as reduction to absurdity. They then refuse to admit that reduction to absurdity is a valid debate tactic (Aristotle would debate them on that point, and win of course) and then whine and cry about it.

They simply cannot stand the fire but refuse to stop putting their hands on the hot stove...

If you re-define "ancient debate tactics" to be outright lying and refusal to admit facts, I guess you could try to claim that, but you would be wrong.

Still waiting on your apology and acknowledgement that you accused 3 AT members of stalking and criminal activity without any reason or proof. (linking a definition of the word doesn't really count as proof, just so you know).

But you will forget that, since it just another fact that you have been proved wrong on again, just like all the others.

 

[cybrsage]

Dictonaries are obviously not your friend, Garf. You need to make up with them and actually read one now and again. You could use the gain in knowledge you will get when you do so.

To help you out, I will repost the definition you pretend is not real and does not exist:

stalk·er

  /ˈstɔkər/ Show Spelled[staw-ker] Show IPA
noun 1. a person who pursues game, prey, or a person stealthily.

2. a person who harasses another person, as a former lover, a famous person, etc., in an aggressive, often threatening and illegal manner: Hollywood stars often have security guards to keep dangerous stalkers at bay.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stalker?s=t

 

[dank69]

Actually, I use a lot of ancient debate tactics and people seem to freak out over them. Aristotle is a great guide to awesome debate tactics, I highly recommend reading his works.

People tend to get very mad when they see their arguments easily ripped apart by a method made famous a few thousand years ago, such as reduction to absurdity. They then refuse to admit that reduction to absurdity is a valid debate tactic (Aristotle would debate them on that point, and win of course) and then whine and cry about it.

They simply cannot stand the fire but refuse to stop putting their hands on the hot stove...

Reductio ad absurdum relies on the person using it to know when it is applicable. This is something you don't seem to be capable of.

Reductio ad absurdum is only valid when it builds on assertions which are actually present in the argument it is deconstructing, and not when it misrepresents them as a straw man. For example, any creationist argument that takes the form of "if evolution was real, we'd see fish turning into monkeys and monkeys turning into people all the time" only serves to ridicule itself, since it mischaracterises the theory of evolution to an extreme degree.

The argument from adverse consequences is a similar but more flawed technique. While reductio ad absurdum rejects an argument on the basis that its logical consequences are so unlikely that the argument cannot possibly be sound, the argument from adverse consequences rejects an argument because its consequences are undesirable, or because accepting it could mean accepting something we would prefer not to acknowledge; in most cases, this is regarded as a logical fallacy.

 

[cybrsage]

Ah, the old "you effectively use it against me repeatedly so I am going to pretend you do not know what you are talking about" excuse. Good one!

 

[cybrsage]

So, now that you guys have had your fun turning this thread into being about me again (against the stated desired of Perknose), will you again allow the thread to be about the rules change?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Dictonaries are obviously not your friend, Garf. You need to make up with them and actually read one now and again. You could use the gain in knowledge you will get when you do so.

To help you out, I will repost the definition you pretend is not real and does not exist:


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stalker?s=t

You post a definition like it means something.....you accused myself and two others of stalking and criminal activity, and all you can do to support that serious accusation is to link a dictionary? Really?

cybrtroll: judge, he's a stalker!!!!!oneoneone!!!!
judge: proof?
cybrtroll: <definition of stalker>
judge: WTF? I know what the definition is, prove to me he is one
cybrtroll: wahhh!!!!! stalker!!oneoneeleventyone!!!!
judge: get out of here

Did I put in enough "one's" for your troll angst?

You won't even admit that you accused others as well, talk about denial and living in fantasy world.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

So, now that you guys have had your fun turning this thread into being about me again (against the stated desired of Perknose), will you again allow the thread to be about the rules change?

You are the needed rules change....once you get banned, we won't need a change.

 

[cybrsage]

You are the needed rules change....once you get banned, we won't need a change.

You do realize you are still making the thread about me and not the rules change, right?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

No, pointing out your lies is the rules change.

Accusations of criminal activity without any evidence is a serious offense, and is right in line with "no insults".

 

[dank69]

Ah, the old "you effectively use it against me repeatedly so I am going to pretend you do not know what you are talking about" excuse. Good one!

It's a good thing you have the ability to just make stuff up, otherwise you'd never "win" a debate.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If guys ignore/stop quoting & replying to troll posts, he may simply get disinterested and leave, or try harder and get banned on his own and the derailments will be more and more clear.

Leaving aside the fact that his disruptive behavior is already abundantly clear...

You are correct that if everyone stopped replying to his trolling, things would be better. But the reason that trolling works is that you can never get everyone to agree not to respond.

Effective trolls like cybrsage don't just drop obvious bombs that can be easily ignored. They insinuate themselves into discussions, sometimes starting out with reasonable posts and arguments. And then, over time, they degrade the dialog by taking increasingly extreme positions, distorting what others have said, and using similar tactics.

This is why forums that care about productive discussion need rules. The ability to put on ignore those who repeatedly and flagrantly violate those rules is not a solution.

 

[cybrsage]

No, pointing out your lies is the rules change.

Accusations of criminal activity without any evidence is a serious offense, and is right in line with "no insults".

Ah, I see now. You simply do not understand what Perknose wrote in the OP. I will repost it for you:

8/3/12 -- Insults and personal attacks, while permitted, are not to be excessively vitriolic or scatological in nature, nor will any one poster be allowed constantly engage in them. Please let common sense, and some idea of proportion and civility be your guide.

There are no mentions of lies in there. Now that you know, you should stop spreading misinformation about Perknose's post.

 

[Retro Rob]

Leaving aside the fact that his disruptive behavior is already abundantly clear...

You are correct that if everyone stopped replying to his trolling, things would be better. But the reason that trolling works is that you can never get everyone to agree not to respond.

Effective trolls like cybrsage don't just drop obvious bombs that can be easily ignored. They insinuate themselves into discussions, sometimes starting out with reasonable posts and arguments. And then, over time, they degrade the dialog by taking increasingly extreme positions, distorting what others have said, and using similar tactics.

This is why forums that care about productive discussion need rules. The ability to put on ignore those who repeatedly and flagrantly violate those rules is not a solution.

Ah, I see what you mean.

He's had over 10k posts.. and it he's that bad, why not deal with him and get it over with?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

He's had over 10k posts.. and it he's that bad, why not deal with him and get it over with?

Good question.

To their credit, the mods and admins here bend over backwards to try to be fair to everyone.

But I've been in that position in forums I've run in the past. And at some point you just have to make some hard decisions and let the chips fall where they may.

I don't even consider this a tough decision. But I'm not in charge, and I'm not criticizing those who are -- they do an excellent job.

 

[shira]

"Forgive me if I don't respond to your response. I'm not ignoring you. I just don't want to waste any more time on the worst troll this forum has ever know, Cybrsage."
--------------

Then I will not reply and it won't bother me. If what you say of cybrsage is true than it must also be true of me.

Actually, if what I said about cybrsage is true, then it cannot possibly also be true of you. There can be only one "worst troll this forum has ever known."

Besides, you're not a troll at all.

 

[Moonbeam]

Good question.

To their credit, the mods and admins here bend over backwards to try to be fair to everyone.

But I've been in that position in forums I've run in the past. And at some point you just have to make some hard decisions and let the chips fall where they may.

I don't even consider this a tough decision. But I'm not in charge, and I'm not criticizing those who are -- they do an excellent job.

The neuroscience on conservative thinking indicates, how shall I say it, extra suspiciousness that folk are out to censor them, that reality has a liberal bias? It would seem then that you would have to give a conservative a lot more rope for him to feel he was getting fair treatment. Given that and the innate propensity of liberals who create free forum discussions to create exactly the kind of atmosphere their kind of thinking thrives in and you are going to wind up with lots of room for folk who have no real intent to argue and only want to win via implacability, deflection, and rudeness.

But given the rules as they are, I do not think anything but bias can remove cybrsage from the forum. You could take a statistical approach. He pisses off the most people so he's out, but that just implies that his approach is the most effective in getting under liberal's skin, that he can do to them better, what they want to do to him. So what you call a hard decision, I would call a decision based on convenience or practicality, where fairness is scarified for utility.

The problem with cybersage, is not what he thinks but that he exposes liberal rage and it embarrasses other liberals when one of them feels it. Rage goes with being conservative, the kind of imbecilic passion thrown at Obama by the Tea Party because he's the President and not a real American. It's also destructive of rational forum debate.

As an aside, I would only point out that liberals are full of rage and suffer by hiding it or pretending otherwise. Everybody reacts badly to rage because their own is bottled up and the rage of others brings it to the surface, creating a feeling of fear and danger. Rage is a step on the road to insanity. It is also a step on the road to ending depression and sadness. And if you ever get into rage in a therapeutic setting you will understand that what people experience here in the forum is at max a mild form of irritation.

But anyway, this is why I feel it is best for the forum to change the rules where expressions of irrational anger to others are not allowed to come out directly or indirectly via innuendo, careful phrasing, etc. but instead every opinion expressed has to be accompanied by a rational justification for why the poster believes what he says to be so.

This will prevent conservatives from feeling they are under constant attack and provide liberals with the same.

The problem, I see, of course, is that while folk may think they come here to debate, I see what actually happens and cannot believe that's not the real intention. Because we are so angry we want to express it. We just don't want it expressed back.

It the dissonance between the forum's stated intention, it's permissive nature, and the real unconscious intentions of the participants that stirs up all this fuss, in my opinion, and the answer to it, also in my opinion, is not to ignore sources of irritation, but to change the forum rules to create a clear intention. Either make it a pig sty where we can slime to our hearts content, or make it about rational content with rules of conduct that confine post to that. It seems to me to be irrational to say the forum should be x and make rules that lead to y. Say x and make the rules to enforce x.

 

[Moonbeam]

Actually, if what I said about cybrsage is true, then it cannot possibly also be true of you. There can be only one "worst troll this forum has ever known."

Besides, you're not a troll at all.

Well true, but it could be a tie. My point is only that you see me as you do because both of us are over on the liberal side with myself perhaps being extremely extreme in that, because I am so so liberal I can't see any objective means to distinguish between what cybersage does and what I do. The distinction, I believe, lies only in intent. I can, only with extreme honesty, ever really know my own intent, a feat I do not assume myself capable of, and I can only guess at the intent of anybody else.

I maintain therefore, that in objective reality, there is no difference between me and cybrsage that can be objectively expressed that is universal for liberals and conservatives. I therefore claim that to ban cybrsage requires a bias I can't myself find.

Consider the expression, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

I know you are not religious, but what is the intention, what, if any, is the wisdom behind this comment?

Is it to protect you from a rending? Is it to save what is holy or sacred or really true from being shat upon by fools? And who has the arrogance or wisdom to know what a pearl is much less that you speak them? And how nice is it that such wisdom speaks of the ignorant as dogs and pigs?

Or this:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

I think if you take any of this seriously, and I do, you can't post on a political forum like this, and maintain any internal integrity. If you want to live without ego, I see only love and crucifixion.

But if you make the rules to support our better natures and prohibit the worst, one can lift a little of that burden of crucifixion, no?

You can put out what YOU think is a pearl, and others will have to respond with what they think is theirs. No turning to rend allowed. How does our understanding of the morality of the ages inform us as to how to best treat the world and our brothers. The seeking of a commonality of aim rather than the belittling of difference should be the goal, in my opinion. Looking at the forum, I think the aim needs a different kind of help than banning people, a simple demand that disagreements with another's be conducted on the basis or reasoned argument with no assertions of baseless negative opinions.

I realize that for those who come here to dump on others for emotional release, or for those who come to dump on those to do that, having to support your dump as reasoned, will be a burden to great, and some may self ban. But you can't really have therapy for the crazy and reasonable debate in the same forum, it seems to me. I just think the rules should comport with the actual intention by banning the default behavior we actually see and only urging, tolerantly, a better way. I think it's obvious where and what that gets us.

 

[monovillage]

Moonie, you should have shared some links with the forum so they can do their own reading and make their own decisions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/why-republicans-deny-scie_b_1196823.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/want-to-understand-republ_b_1262542.html

Mooney's book. (not imo our Moonie)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Republican...N%3D1118094514

Some comment on it.
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/02/republican-brains-republican-genes.html

and of course Dr. Judith Curry's blog link and comment on it.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/29/republican-brain/

Share the wealth Moonie, don't horde knowledge and links.

 

[dank69]

...

You can put out what YOU think is a pearl, and others will have to respond with what they think is theirs. No turning to rend allowed. How does our understanding of the morality of the ages inform us as to how to best treat the world and our brothers. The seeking of a commonality of aim rather than the belittling of difference should be the goal, in my opinion. Looking at the forum, I think the aim needs a different kind of help than banning people, a simple demand that disagreements with another's be conducted on the basis or reasoned argument with no assertions of baseless negative opinions.

...

Would be nice but they don't even have the resources to enforce no posting of logical falacies/misinformation, let alone requiring sources/reasoning for all posts.