• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

P&N Community Poll (mod-sponsored): Renewal Vote on "No thread-crapping, etc" Rule

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Permanently Adopt The "No Thread-Crapping, etc" Policy?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
I haven't read everything in this thread, largely because it seems to be a three-ring circus with cybrsage in the middle holding the whip. He is the only person on this board that I have on ignore, and it is for the precise reason that he does exactly what he is doing here whenever anyone tries to engage him. Whenever I tried to have a conversation with him, he deliberately misrepresented my position and went off on endless side-tangents. Probably not against the rules, but certainly not conducive to discussion.

I've run several boards and online groups over the years. It's an admirable goal to have objective rules that define acceptable behavior, but what I've learned is that they only work on people who are reasonable. There will always be a couple of folks who will walk the line, never saying anything that is directly actionable, but still being extremely disruptive.

And ironically enough, this thread itself is a canonical example.

It's not good for a board when people open a thread, see people bickering over definitions, and close the window.
 
DrPizza said:
I don't think there's a perfect definition of a troll. If we made any attempt to define troll too specifically, other than what people would generally regard as trolling, then trolls would simply continue to troll while walking a fine line at the edge of that definition.

The behavior is like a little kid told "don't throw rocks." He'll pick up a stone and throw it. Then, when reprimanded for throwing rocks, he'll say, "you said rocks. Geologists define a rock to be greater than 12 centimeters. From 1 to 12 centimeters is a stone, from 1 millimeter to 1 centimeter is a pebble, then sand... If you're going to make rules, you can't just start arbitrarily enforcing some other rules that you haven't stated. Specifically tell me what size I can't throw and I won't throw that size."

This entire discussion seeking a perfect definition of a troll to be codified is not needed. We all know what a troll is. It's the spirit of the rule, rather than the exact wording.
edit: wow, that little kid analogy sounds like someone. Heck, he'd find where Geologists defined rock as 13-40 centimeters, rock as 1 to 12 centimeters, and go out looking for a 12.5 centimeter stone/rock to throw and feign innocence when called out on it, because the 12.5 centimeter stone/rock wasn't in the rules.
Click to expand...
Indeed, well said. Yes, your analogy sounds exactly like someone.
 
cybrsage said:
Irrelevant. I may or may not have figured it out. Asking him to publically state its purpose is what I did.

Why do you think its purpose was to provoke an emotional response?
Click to expand...
Because I find it hard to believe that an educated person such as yourself cannot figure out his obvious motive.
 
cybrsage said:
Good enough. Do you do that at parties as well?
Click to expand...
"Perhaps you do not understand the difference between a PM and an open forum. That would explain your confusion."

I take offense at you regularly altering quotes to remove key points while retaining some little tidbit you can use to insult or deflect. As I understand the P&N rules, that behavior is unacceptable.
 
Bowfinger said:
I take offense at you regularly altering quotes to remove key points while retaining some little tidbit you can use to insult or deflect. As I understand the P&N rules, that behavior is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

I do not alter quotes, I only quote the relevant portion. I insert ... to make it clear it is not a 100% quote. The vast majority of people do this.

You can take offense if you wish, but why would you choose to take offense when none is given.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
I haven't read everything in this thread, largely because it seems to be a three-ring circus with cybrsage in the middle holding the whip. He is the only person on this board that I have on ignore, and it is for the precise reason that he does exactly what he is doing here whenever anyone tries to engage him. Whenever I tried to have a conversation with him, he deliberately misrepresented my position and went off on endless side-tangents. Probably not against the rules, but certainly not conducive to discussion.

I've run several boards and online groups over the years. It's an admirable goal to have objective rules that define acceptable behavior, but what I've learned is that they only work on people who are reasonable. There will always be a couple of folks who will walk the line, never saying anything that is directly actionable, but still being extremely disruptive.

And ironically enough, this thread itself is a canonical example.

It's not good for a board when people open a thread, see people bickering over definitions, and close the window.
Click to expand...

+1 cybr is at the heart of many intentional lies, off-topic troll posts, and other ridiculous accusations and untruths.
 
cybrsage said:
I do not alter quotes, I only quote the relevant portion. I insert ... to make it clear it is not a 100% quote. The vast majority of people do this.

You can take offense if you wish, but why would you choose to take offense when none is given.
Click to expand...

This is complete and utter BS and a total lie. You did this to me not too long ago.

My quote:

Link

Look, I'm sorry you are a pathetic troll, who goes from forum to forum trolling the same thing. But I can't help or change that, only you can. As I have said multiple times, anyone interested can google you and see your posting history on multiple forums. But as a known troll on several forums, trusting anything you say is laughable at best, and dangerous at worst.
Click to expand...


Somehow, you edited my quote down to "I'm sorry", making it seem I was apologizing to you, and you were claiming that I should apologize.

Link

As you should be. Now admit your lie. So far, you are proving me right about you being too afraid to do it. I thought you might gain the courage to admit it just to prove me wrong about you being to cowardsly to admit it...but apparently courage is not your forte.
Click to expand...

That is intentional and deliberate misquoting to change the meaning of the quote. To claim something else is 100% false.

So once again, you are proved to be a liar.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
Here is a specific example.

Note the deliberate trolling misstatement: "When did you turn so anti-Obama?" when it was abundantly evident that I was not being anti-Obama.

Pretty much par for the course. I don't know of any board that is better off with people like that on it.
Click to expand...

And lets not forget cybr's concept that if you don't immediately dispute anything he claims, you are admitting you are agreeing with him.....where he came up with that ass-backwards idea, I have no clue. But it certainly isn't true.
 
What this whole thread boils down to is, "Pretty please perma-ban Cybrsage and let the rest of us get back to our regularly scheduled flame-war."
 
jackstar7 said:
I'm pretty sure having the intent does not inform on the outcome of something.

It's why your intent to codify a definition is not resulting in that outcome, but your intent is clear.

Intent is a major component of a troll. Why do you want to ignore motive for the offensive behavior?
Click to expand...

Intent is the sole definer of troll.

That is what makes it so darn difficult to moderate. It is like attempting to be the prosecuting attorney pressing charges of attempted murder (or any other crime that failed to occur, but the argument is that the intent was to commit murder, etc).

It becomes even more complicated when we have the observable (the post) being easily conflated with that of a legitimate poster who posted it with no intention to troll. (i.e. they really are posting their opinion, however infuriating or confounding it may be)

And since we don't want to censor people just for having atypical ideas and preconceptions/misconceptions regarding politics and news, we can't use the post itself as the litmus test for concluding the poster posted it with the intent to troll.

And this distinction becomes especially relevant in matters of discussions on political topics because it is a naturally polarizing subject matter, and it tends to invoke feelings that seemed based on rational thought to the individual but the outcome of those feelings is that anyone who doesn't seem to be aligned with the political leanings of the individual concludes the other person must be a troll.

After all, since we are each the smartest person we've ever met, and we think about politics the way we do because we are right and anyone who says otherwise is wrong, the other person who is wrong must be headstrong wrong because they are intentionally being obtuse, indifferent, disingenuous, and a troll. What other reason could there possibly be?

Robert J. Hanlon said:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

(aka Hanlon's Razor)
Click to expand...
 
Idontcare said:
Intent is the sole definer of troll.

That is what makes it so darn difficult to moderate. It is like attempting to be the prosecuting attorney pressing charges of attempted murder (or any other crime that failed to occur, but the argument is that the intent was to commit murder, etc).

It becomes even more complicated when we have the observable (the post) being easily conflated with that of a legitimate poster who posted it with no intention to troll. (i.e. they really are posting their opinion, however infuriating or confounding it may be)

And since we don't want to censor people just for having atypical ideas and preconceptions/misconceptions regarding politics and news, we can't use the post itself as the litmus test for concluding the poster posted it with the intent to troll.

And this distinction becomes especially relevant in matters of discussions on political topics because it is a naturally polarizing subject matter, and it tends to invoke feelings that seemed based on rational thought to the individual but the outcome of those feelings is that anyone who doesn't seem to be aligned with the political leanings of the individual concludes the other person must be a troll.

After all, since we are each the smartest person we've ever met, and we think about politics the way we do because we are right and anyone who says otherwise is wrong, the other person who is wrong must be headstrong wrong because they are intentionally being obtuse, indifferent, disingenuous, and a troll. What other reason could there possibly be?
Click to expand...

Well, when people post 7000+ posts in a 6month period, and 99% are in P&N, and 99% of them are pretty clearly troll posts, if not outright lies, I think it becomes pretty clear. It's not like it is a once in while occurrence. Just in this thread, it's been pointed out several times where people have outright lied, and denied it.

Also, if you asked everyone to name the trolls here, I bet the same 4 or 5 names would be listed on like 98+% of peoples replies. (not suggesting you do this, just pointing it out) That would pretty clearly show the community as a whole agrees that these people are trolling. That isn't moderating the "iffy" posters, that is just cleaning out the worst of the trolls.

But again, it comes down to enforcing people defend their posts in a rational manner. Do that, and the trolls will either leave or get moderated. People should be able to provide rational reasoning to any position they hold. If they can't, it's pretty good evidence that the poster hasn't thought his/her position through.
 
Idontcare said:
Intent is the sole definer of troll.

That is what makes it so darn difficult to moderate. It is like attempting to be the prosecuting attorney pressing charges of attempted murder (or any other crime that failed to occur, but the argument is that the intent was to commit murder, etc).

It becomes even more complicated when we have the observable (the post) being easily conflated with that of a legitimate poster who posted it with no intention to troll. (i.e. they really are posting their opinion, however infuriating or confounding it may be)

And since we don't want to censor people just for having atypical ideas and preconceptions/misconceptions regarding politics and news, we can't use the post itself as the litmus test for concluding the poster posted it with the intent to troll.

And this distinction becomes especially relevant in matters of discussions on political topics because it is a naturally polarizing subject matter, and it tends to invoke feelings that seemed based on rational thought to the individual but the outcome of those feelings is that anyone who doesn't seem to be aligned with the political leanings of the individual concludes the other person must be a troll.

After all, since we are each the smartest person we've ever met, and we think about politics the way we do because we are right and anyone who says otherwise is wrong, the other person who is wrong must be headstrong wrong because they are intentionally being obtuse, indifferent, disingenuous, and a troll. What other reason could there possibly be?
Click to expand...

Hehehehehe, it would just seem that if all us geniuses just proved our cases with the brilliance of our arguments alone, one would think a seemingly easy task given the quality of the intellectual horse power involved, we wouldn't need to run to the mods to enforce our one and only ultimate truths against all the other nasty lies.
 
Idontcare said:
Intent is the sole definer of troll. That is what makes it so darn difficult to moderate.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right, and may I say how refreshing it is to see someone say it, especially an administrator. It seems to be de rigueur lately for anyone who doesn't like someone else to call them a "troll". But trolling only means trying to get a rise out of other people.

Idontcare said:
After all, since we are each the smartest person we've ever met, and we think about politics the way we do because we are right and anyone who says otherwise is wrong, the other person who is wrong must be headstrong wrong because they are intentionally being obtuse, indifferent, disingenuous, and a troll. What other reason could there possibly be?
Click to expand...

Most arguments are just that -- arguments. But I wouldn't categorize "obtuse", "indifferent" and "disingenuous" together. There's a very large difference between arguing with someone who seems to be unwilling or unable to get your point, and someone who is quite obviously deliberately trying to derail the discussion by being dishonest. There's no excuse for some of the tactics given in examples in this thread.

Personally, I wouldn't want to see anyone get banned. But at the same time, it's disappointing to be unable to participate in a discussion because one individual has decided that it would be more fun to fling poo at the other participants to see how they'll react.
 
Last edited:
GarfieldtheCat said:
This is complete and utter BS and a total lie. You did this to me not too long ago.

My quote:

Link




Somehow, you edited my quote down to "I'm sorry", making it seem I was apologizing to you, and you were claiming that I should apologize.

Link



That is intentional and deliberate misquoting to change the meaning of the quote. To claim something else is 100% false.

So once again, you are proved to be a liar.
Click to expand...

Nope...but you can keep pretending it all you like...since you will anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top