Deliberate Disruption of AvC - Policy Change Suggestion - Trance

[Trance Gemini]

I'd like to pose this question to the Mod Team and Owners for an
Opinion and would appreciate it if everyone weighed in.

When someone openly states that their sole purpose for being on AvC is
to disrupt the group should we be ignoring this or should we be asking
them to leave and banning them if they continue to disrupt?

What affect would this have on Free Speech in your opinion?

In my opinion, someone who admits or shows by their actions that they
have no intention or interest in debating on AvC which is a debating
forum should be asked to leave and if they refuse be banned from
participating.

This is not a comment on the content of their posts but on their
behavior and actions.

The minimum requirement for joining AvC should be that you wish to
debate.

Example:
Trance:

http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/48d5d2cf64983449?hl=en

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:54 PM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the situation is this... u disagree because u have not had a spiritual
> experience, and no amount of debate will change that, so why bother?

Then why bother posting here?
This is a debating site not an "everyone should just accept
everything
E_Space says" forum.
So why bother joining if you don't think it's worthwhile to debate.
There are hundreds of forums about spirituality where you can share
your
experience with people who will accept it.
Why come here and disrupt our site by engaging in vitriol, abuse and
hate?

E_Space:

http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/c542946cda1fa26d?hl=en

lol....still dont get it huh? u wear dark sunglasses while posting
here? and...i post here for fun...u guys are a riot...u see things
your way and NO other way...u dont recognize abuse from your side,
yet
as soon as someone that doesnt buy into your blankness says anything
close to abuse u jump all over them...wakey wakey inatrance


http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ee6228dc9f95ab5a?hl=en

and another thing...i do go to spirituality forums and have a great,
but vastly different, time than i have here. and they dont have to
accept what i say, because the already know what im talking about and
vice versa...we have a tendency to share stuff...not 'debate' or
whatever u want to call what goes on here...its a world apart from
this forum, like light compared to blankness....yet i still like
coming here, just for a bit of comic relief. i know u would like me
to
go, but i seem to be on an anti-abuse crusade...it sorta lets me be a
brat without offending anyone who isnt already offending someone
else...thanks for the suggestion though ;-^)

[dead kennedy]

his only effect on me is a slight twinge in my right index finger from
scrolling past his posts, i'l go with the majority.

On 7 May, 14:44, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to pose this question to the Mod Team and Owners for an
> Opinion and would appreciate it if everyone weighed in.
>
> When someone openly states that their sole purpose for being on AvC is
> to disrupt the group should we be ignoring this or should we be asking
> them to leave and banning them if they continue to disrupt?
>
> What affect would this have on Free Speech in your opinion?
>
> In my opinion, someone who admits or shows by their actions that they
> have no intention or interest in debating on AvC which is a debating
> forum should be asked to leave and if they refuse be banned from
> participating.
>
> This is not a comment on the content of their posts but on their
> behavior and actions.
>
> The minimum requirement for joining AvC should be that you wish to
> debate.
>
> Example:
> Trance:
>

> http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/48d5d2cf649...

>
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:54 PM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > the situation is this... u disagree because u have not had a spiritual
> > experience, and no amount of debate will change that, so why bother?
>
> Then why bother posting here?
> This is a debating site not an "everyone should just accept
> everything
> E_Space says" forum.
> So why bother joining if you don't think it's worthwhile to debate.
> There are hundreds of forums about spirituality where you can share
> your
> experience with people who will accept it.
> Why come here and disrupt our site by engaging in vitriol, abuse and
> hate?
>
> E_Space:
>

> http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/c542946cda1...

>
> lol....still dont get it huh? u wear dark sunglasses while posting
> here? and...i post here for fun...u guys are a riot...u see things
> your way and NO other way...u dont recognize abuse from your side,
> yet
> as soon as someone that doesnt buy into your blankness says anything
> close to abuse u jump all over them...wakey wakey inatrance
>

> http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ee6228dc9f9...

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:59 AM, dead kennedy <dead.k...@googlemail.com> wrote:

his only effect on me is a slight twinge in my right index finger from
scrolling past his posts, i'l go with the majority.

Thanks for the input DK.

--
“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)

[Walt]

Are you going to give this authority to each individual moderator? I
predict at least one of them will decide that "vitriol" counts as
being disruptive and not really debating.

On May 7, 9:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to pose this question to the Mod Team and Owners for an
> Opinion and would appreciate it if everyone weighed in.
>
> When someone openly states that their sole purpose for being on AvC is
> to disrupt the group should we be ignoring this or should we be asking
> them to leave and banning them if they continue to disrupt?
>
> What affect would this have on Free Speech in your opinion?
>
> In my opinion, someone who admits or shows by their actions that they
> have no intention or interest in debating on AvC which is a debating
> forum should be asked to leave and if they refuse be banned from
> participating.
>
> This is not a comment on the content of their posts but on their
> behavior and actions.
>
> The minimum requirement for joining AvC should be that you wish to
> debate.
>
> Example:
> Trance:
>

> http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/48d5d2cf649...

>
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:54 PM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > the situation is this... u disagree because u have not had a spiritual
> > experience, and no amount of debate will change that, so why bother?
>
> Then why bother posting here?
> This is a debating site not an "everyone should just accept
> everything
> E_Space says" forum.
> So why bother joining if you don't think it's worthwhile to debate.
> There are hundreds of forums about spirituality where you can share
> your
> experience with people who will accept it.
> Why come here and disrupt our site by engaging in vitriol, abuse and
> hate?
>
> E_Space:
>

> http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/c542946cda1...

>
> lol....still dont get it huh? u wear dark sunglasses while posting
> here? and...i post here for fun...u guys are a riot...u see things
> your way and NO other way...u dont recognize abuse from your side,
> yet
> as soon as someone that doesnt buy into your blankness says anything
> close to abuse u jump all over them...wakey wakey inatrance
>

> http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ee6228dc9f9...

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Are you going to give this authority to each individual moderator?  I
predict at least one of them will decide that "vitriol" counts as
being disruptive and not really debating.

I'm just getting feedback right now.

It would have to be provable and the entire Mod Team would have to agree that the issue was behavior and not post content.

And meet defining characteristics here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

[Answer_42]

On May 7, 9:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd like to pose this question to the Mod Team and Owners for an
> Opinion and would appreciate it if everyone weighed in.
>
> When someone openly states that their sole purpose for being on AvC is
> to disrupt the group should we be ignoring this or should we be asking
> them to leave and banning them if they continue to disrupt?

Totally agree.
If someone states thay they are not interested in debating, for
whatver reason, then sayonara...

Others do not state it openly but almost do, like manny, xnun or
maggie for instance.
They have not claimed, like e_space did, "I do not want to debate."
but have frequently stated "Debating is useless... what is the
point... get a life..." etc.
And then the never participate in any discussion in any meaningful
way.
They should also be booted out.

When soneone joins and behaves like that, we all attempt to show them
how unreasonable they are, if they persists with their
unreasonableness, why keep them around and have them clutter the
threads with their nonsense?

> What affect would this have on Free Speech in your opinion?
>
> In my opinion, someone who admits or shows by their actions that they
> have no intention or interest in debating on AvC which is a debating
> forum should be asked to leave and if they refuse be banned from
> participating.

Agreed, this is not about free speech, but about openly observable
behaviour.
_______________________________
No man who ever lived knows any more about the hereafter ... than you
and I; and all religion ... is simply evolved out of chicanery, fear,
greed, imagination and poetry.
-- Edgar Allan Poe

[Trance Gemini]

Yes and in addition this disruptive behavior actively impedes the free speech rights of serious debaters.

We have threads which have been so disrupted that you can have to go through thirty posts to find one which contains debate.

It derails healthy discussion.

As long as the requirements are stringent and all the Mods are required to agree I think we can safely avoid situations where people are banned because of unpopularity or content like Fossil and serious, deliberate disrupters like E_Space can be dealt with effectively.

We are slowly losing good members and they are being replaced by more (and more malicious) trolls.

I don't think we have any choice but to deal with this situation firmly.

 

_______________________________
No man who ever lived knows any more about the hereafter ... than you
and I; and all religion ... is simply evolved out of chicanery, fear,
greed, imagination and poetry.
-- Edgar Allan Poe

[Multiverse]

On May 7, 9:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd like to pose this question to the Mod Team and Owners for an
> Opinion and would appreciate it if everyone weighed in.
>
> When someone openly states that their sole purpose for being on AvC is
> to disrupt the group should we be ignoring this or should we be asking
> them to leave and banning them if they continue to disrupt?
>

If they actually made that statement then yes, ban em.

> What affect would this have on Free Speech in your opinion?

None. Just like banning spam for the purpose of not disrupting the
site.

>
> In my opinion, someone who admits

admits to the purpose of disruption, yes.

> or shows by their actions that they
> have no intention or interest in debating on AvC which is a debating
> forum should be asked to leave and if they refuse be banned from
> participating.

"Shows by their actions" is way to open to interpretation. The only
way to glean "shows by their actions" is to place some relative value
on the content of some collection of posts. Since I do not trust ALL
the mods to carry out their mod duties without bias, I am against
banning on such interpretation in principle.

>
> This is not a comment on the content of their posts but on their
> behavior and actions.
>

Sorry, their behavior and actions is inferred from the content of
their posts.

> The minimum requirement for joining AvC should be that you wish to
> debate.

More than rigidly defined debate goes on here all the time.
Discussion which compares and contrasts ideas and outright
solicitation of ideas without returned comment is routine.

>
> Example:
> Trance:
>
> http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/48d5d2cf649...

>
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:54 PM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > the situation is this... u disagree because u have not had a spiritual
> > experience, and no amount of debate will change that, so why bother?
>
> Then why bother posting here?
> This is a debating site not an "everyone should just accept
> everything
> E_Space says" forum.
> So why bother joining if you don't think it's worthwhile to debate.
> There are hundreds of forums about spirituality where you can share
> your
> experience with people who will accept it.
> Why come here and disrupt our site by engaging in vitriol, abuse and
> hate?

Sorry Trance but this is an example of e space debating you.
Specifically it is an on topic statement assessing the merit's of
debating someone who has not had a religious experience. While
focusing as you did on the merits of e space bothering to come here at
all is fine, you could also have ignored him or commented directly on
his assessment that only a spiritual experience could change your
mind.

>
> E_Space:
>
> http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/c542946cda1...

>
> lol....still dont get it huh? u wear dark sunglasses while posting
> here? and...i post here for fun...u guys are a riot...u see things
> your way and NO other way...u dont recognize abuse from your side,
> yet
> as soon as someone that doesnt buy into your blankness says anything
> close to abuse u jump all over them...wakey wakey inatrance

I think opinions are welcome here and that includes opinions of others
opinions.

>
> http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ee6228dc9f9...

>
> and another thing...i do go to spirituality forums and have a great,
> but vastly different, time than i have here. and they dont have to
> accept what i say, because the already know what im talking about and
> vice versa...we have a tendency to share stuff...not 'debate' or
> whatever u want to call what goes on here...its a world apart from
> this forum, like light compared to blankness....yet i still like
> coming here, just for a bit of comic relief. i know u would like me
> to
> go, but i seem to be on an anti-abuse crusade...it sorta lets me be a
> brat without offending anyone who isnt already offending someone
> else...thanks for the suggestion though ;-^)

It really does not matter how e space classifies the value of
participating here.

Troll's exist everywhere. I don't see any problem with someone who
does nothing but offer critique of what other's say.

Now if they actually state they are trying to disrupt the SITE then
ban em.

Sorry Trance, I see your point in that e space does not engage in
debate in the proper sense but I don't see this as something that
should be added as a banning offense.

[Drafterman]

This is simply a draw back to the format of Google Groups. Compare to
other styles of forums where you can have sub groups for different
categories. Maybe forums of this style have a "catch-all" forum where
anyone can post whatever they want while the other sub forums are
moderated to stay on topic.

Unfortunately that is not a feasible option here.

On May 7, 9:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd like to pose this question to the Mod Team and Owners for an
> Opinion and would appreciate it if everyone weighed in.
>
> When someone openly states that their sole purpose for being on AvC is
> to disrupt the group should we be ignoring this or should we be asking
> them to leave and banning them if they continue to disrupt?
>
> What affect would this have on Free Speech in your opinion?
>
> In my opinion, someone who admits or shows by their actions that they
> have no intention or interest in debating on AvC which is a debating
> forum should be asked to leave and if they refuse be banned from
> participating.
>
> This is not a comment on the content of their posts but on their
> behavior and actions.
>
> The minimum requirement for joining AvC should be that you wish to
> debate.
>
> Example:
> Trance:
>

> http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/48d5d2cf649...

>
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:54 PM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > the situation is this... u disagree because u have not had a spiritual
> > experience, and no amount of debate will change that, so why bother?
>
> Then why bother posting here?
> This is a debating site not an "everyone should just accept
> everything
> E_Space says" forum.
> So why bother joining if you don't think it's worthwhile to debate.
> There are hundreds of forums about spirituality where you can share
> your
> experience with people who will accept it.
> Why come here and disrupt our site by engaging in vitriol, abuse and
> hate?
>
> E_Space:
>

> http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/c542946cda1...

>
> lol....still dont get it huh? u wear dark sunglasses while posting
> here? and...i post here for fun...u guys are a riot...u see things
> your way and NO other way...u dont recognize abuse from your side,
> yet
> as soon as someone that doesnt buy into your blankness says anything
> close to abuse u jump all over them...wakey wakey inatrance
>

> http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ee6228dc9f9...

[Trance Gemini]

Thanks for your comments MV. I disagree but appreciate your input.

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Multiverse <cut...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

On May 7, 9:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd like to pose this question to the Mod Team and Owners for an
> Opinion and would appreciate it if everyone weighed in.
>
> When someone openly states that their sole purpose for being on AvC is
> to disrupt the group should we be ignoring this or should we be asking
> them to leave and banning them if they continue to disrupt?
>

If they actually made that statement then yes, ban em.

> What affect would this have on Free Speech in your opinion?

None.  Just like banning spam for the purpose of not disrupting the
site.

>
> In my opinion, someone who admits

admits to the purpose of disruption, yes.

> or shows by their actions that they
> have no intention or interest in debating on AvC which is a debating
> forum should be asked to leave and if they refuse be banned from
> participating.

1. E_Space openly states that he/she has no interest whatsoever in debate.

> http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/48d5d2cf649...

>
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:54 PM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > the situation is this... u disagree because u have not had a spiritual
> > experience, and no amount of debate will change that, so why bother?
>

AvC is a debating forum.

A desire to engage in debate should be the minimum requirement to join.

Therefore someone who has openly stated that he/she does not wish to engage in debate is not meeting the minimum requirements for membership here and should, in my opinion be asked to leave and if they refuse be banned on those grounds alone.

2. In addition, there is absolutely no reason for someone to join a debating group if they don't want to debate other than to disrupt the group.

Realistically, it's not rocket science to infer that and there are no leaps in logic involved here.

Like I said, the number of serious debaters is decreasing because of disrupters like E_Space and XNun and the number of Trolls are increasing.

If we leave this alone we're not going to have a debating group we're going to be left with a nasty troll group which is of course what E_Space and XNun want.

"Shows by their actions" is way to open to interpretation.  The only
way to glean "shows by their actions" is to place some relative value
on the content of some collection of posts.  Since I do not trust ALL
the mods to carry out their mod duties without bias, I am against
banning on such interpretation in principle.

If all of the Moderators are required to agree before someone is banned for being a troll we can protect ourselves and the members from situations where people are banned for being disliked or for the content of their posts.

E_Space has shown repeatedly by his/her actions that he/she has no interest in participating in our group as a debater, only as a troll.

 

>
> This is not a comment on the content of their posts but on their
> behavior and actions.
>

Sorry, their behavior and actions is inferred from the content of
their posts.

In the same way that spam is inferred from the content of their posts.

 

 

> The minimum requirement for joining AvC should be that you wish to
> debate.

More than rigidly defined debate goes on here all the time.
Discussion which compares and contrasts ideas and outright

solicitation of ideas without returned comment is routine..

By no stretch of the imagination can anyone misconstrue what E_Space and XNun do as debate and both (I'd have to find the quote from XNun and it's possible I'm wrong but I don't think so) have stated openly that they are not here to debate.

XNun is an open spammer and the only thing that prevents her from being banned now as a spammer is that she responds to posts.

However, since she's a troll and doesn't debate she stays.

Ironic. She stays because she's a troll. If she wasn't a troll she'd be banned as a spammer.

This is part of the problem.

Just to clarify. I'm proposing the following.

1. People who openly state that they are not interested in debate and/or are interested in disrupting AvC should be asked to leave and if they refuse be banned.

2. They must meet the definition of Internet Troll in the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

3. There must be 100% agreement on Owner/Moderation Team for a person to be banned for this reason.

In addition I'm thinking of expanding 1 to simply be All Trolls should be asked to leave.

[trog69]

As much as I detest trolls like the aforementioned, it is indeed our fault for their continued presence, and I am seriously going to stop feeding them. Even if they stick around anyway, since they're both far too ignorant to realize that they're wasting only their own time, we can continue on as before e_nun became an "item". Watching them sputter on for a week or so sounds pretty good to me, as long as they keep the obviously straight lines to a minimum. Truly a smart-ass's nightmare; A perfect response, and I can't say it. ARRGGHHHH!

"I can hack it, man; I can hack it!"~(Full Metal Jacket)

--
Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.
~ Kurt Vonnegut

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Drafterman <draft...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is simply a draw back to the format of Google Groups. Compare to
other styles of forums where you can have sub groups for different
categories. Maybe forums of this style have a "catch-all" forum where
anyone can post whatever they want while the other sub forums are
moderated to stay on topic.

Unfortunately that is not a feasible option here.

That's true but we could establish a policy on Trolls. That is a feasible option.

I think I'd like to expand my definition to simply include anyone who meets the definition of Internet Troll should be asked to leave or change their behavior.

If 100% of the Owner/Mod Board agree that the person meets the definition of Internet Troll, and doesn't change their behavior on request or leave, we should ban them.

We are getting a lot of Trolls and they are successfully disrupting our group.

I'm seriously concerned about the future of this group if we don't deal with this problem.

[Trance Gemini]

I think it might be too late for that.

E_Space doesn't seem to care anymore if people respond.

He/she fills up numerous threads with trolling posts and continues to do so whether anyone responds or not.

And XNun just uglier and uglier the more you ignore her.

[simonsaysbye]

OK Trance you've asked for my thoughts here they are. I don't hold
these intransigently; I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

1. This is proposing something that is a change from what AvC has
been like in the past. It is a reasonable change, and it logically
follows on from what we currently do, but is nevertheless a change.

2. If I put aside issues of free speech etc. and just say what I
*want*, I would personally prefer it if there was some procedure to
get rid of trolls that no one want staying. So in general I am a mod
who agrees in principle with your proposal. My realisation that
getting rid of trolls would be good came when checkers was banned (not
for trolling, mind). When he left it was just so nice to not have him
clogging up the board. I never bothered to read him (and I never
bother to read xnun or e_space) but the fact is if they weren't there
the forum, overall that would not be a bad thing.

3. As you point out below, having 100% consent from Mods seems useful,
so I understand that it is attractive, but I wonder if its 100%
workable. All it takes is one mod to be away and we're stuck.
Personally, for me if three mods agree that's good enough for me, but
in terms of perception maybe three mods and 1 owner, or two mods and 2
owners? (But if one Mod or owner disagrees, then they have veto, see
below.)

4. The person being banned should be warned a certain number of times,
and a thread be started here to give them opportunity to defend
themselves.

5. Trolls nearly always identify with one side or the other; and
their presence sometimes detracts from that cause. xnun is hardly
doing me, a theist, any favours. But some mods / members might like
the fact that a theist troll's presence is working against what I am
arguing for, and I would not want to take that advantage away from the
other side. So for example in xnun's case banning her might be
construed as me getting rid of an irritating thorn for my personal
benefit. That's why I suggest a mod / owner veto: that way if I
support a theist getting banned, any mod can stop that if they prefer
the person staying. Or is there some better way?

6. I don't think an open confession to being a troll is necessary
(and in any case, it could be arguable whether or not a confession was
intended to be take seriously, it might have just been a flame).
Trolls will by definition have many many posts; that should is
evidence enough of their intent. If it is not, then they probably are
not trolls who qualify getting banned.

best,
ssb

On May 7, 2:44 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to pose this question to the Mod Team and Owners for an
> Opinion and would appreciate it if everyone weighed in.
>
> When someone openly states that their sole purpose for being on AvC is
> to disrupt the group should we be ignoring this or should we be asking
> them to leave and banning them if they continue to disrupt?
>
> What affect would this have on Free Speech in your opinion?
>
> In my opinion, someone who admits or shows by their actions that they
> have no intention or interest in debating on AvC which is a debating
> forum should be asked to leave and if they refuse be banned from
> participating.
>
> This is not a comment on the content of their posts but on their
> behavior and actions.
>
> The minimum requirement for joining AvC should be that you wish to
> debate.
>
> Example:
> Trance:
>

> http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/48d5d2cf649...

>
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:54 PM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > the situation is this... u disagree because u have not had a spiritual
> > experience, and no amount of debate will change that, so why bother?
>
> Then why bother posting here?
> This is a debating site not an "everyone should just accept
> everything
> E_Space says" forum.
> So why bother joining if you don't think it's worthwhile to debate.
> There are hundreds of forums about spirituality where you can share
> your
> experience with people who will accept it.
> Why come here and disrupt our site by engaging in vitriol, abuse and
> hate?
>
> E_Space:
>

> http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/c542946cda1...

>
> lol....still dont get it huh? u wear dark sunglasses while posting
> here? and...i post here for fun...u guys are a riot...u see things
> your way and NO other way...u dont recognize abuse from your side,
> yet
> as soon as someone that doesnt buy into your blankness says anything
> close to abuse u jump all over them...wakey wakey inatrance
>

> http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ee6228dc9f9...

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:54 PM, simonsaysbye <tahta...@live.co.uk> wrote:

OK Trance you've asked for my thoughts here they are. I don't hold
these intransigently; I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

Thank you. So am I.

I'm really just brainstorming and hope to get enough feedback that we can come up with something workable and it doesn't have to be what I'm proposing.

Multiverse made some important points that I'm still thinking about.

 

1.  This is proposing something that is a change from what AvC has
been like in the past.  It is a reasonable change, and it logically
follows on from what we currently do, but is nevertheless a change.

Yes. It's a Policy Change if we do it.

In the past we have ignored trolls.

 

2. If I put aside issues of free speech etc. and just say what I
*want*, I would personally prefer it if there was some procedure to
get rid of trolls that no one want staying.  So in general I am a mod
who agrees in principle with your proposal.  My realisation that
getting rid of trolls would be good came when checkers was banned (not
for trolling, mind).  When he left it was just so nice to not have him
clogging up the board.  I never bothered to read him (and I never
bother to read xnun or e_space) but the fact is if they weren't there
the forum, overall that would not be a bad thing.

3. As you point out below, having 100% consent from Mods seems useful,
so I understand that it is attractive, but I wonder if its 100%
workable.  All it takes is one mod to be away and we're stuck.
Personally, for me if three mods agree that's good enough for me, but
in terms of perception maybe three mods and 1 owner, or two mods and 2
owners?  (But if one Mod or owner disagrees, then they have veto, see
below.)

4. The person being banned should be warned a certain number of times,
and a thread be started here to give them opportunity to defend
themselves.

I don't agree with 3 (I'm making it difficult deliberately) but 4 is a very good point and I would be happy to include that. Everyone should be given the opportunity to defend themselves and negotiate an agreement which sets out the terms like we did with Ed Conrad and Fossil.

Both have been meticulous in terms of sticking to the agreement that was made and as a result their participation here has not been the least bit disruptive.

 

5.  Trolls nearly always identify with one side or the other; and
their presence sometimes detracts from that cause.  xnun is hardly
doing me, a theist, any favours.  But some mods / members might like
the fact that a theist troll's presence is working against what I am
arguing for, and I would not want to take that advantage away from the
other side.  So for example in xnun's case banning her might be
construed as me getting rid of an irritating thorn for my personal
benefit.  That's why I suggest a mod / owner veto: that way if I
support a theist getting banned, any mod can stop that if they prefer
the person staying.  Or is there some better way?

That's why we need a 100% consensus. It will have to be thoroughly argued in order to get that kind of consensus. That fact alone will prevent any of the types of issues you are outlining.

 

6.  I don't think an open confession to being a troll is necessary
(and in any case, it could be arguable whether or not a confession was
intended to be take seriously, it might have just been a flame).

Agreed.

 

Trolls will by definition have many many posts; that should is
evidence enough of their intent.  If it is not, then they probably are
not trolls who qualify getting banned.

Well I would go by the definition I provided. There are different types of Trolls who have different goals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

There are also different ways of disrupting or destroying a news group.

This is what I want us to work on preventing. However we do it.

[Winslow]

On May 7, 3:54 pm, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> Trolls will by definition have many many posts; that should is
> evidence enough of their intent.

Like more than 233 posts in a month, or 17009 overall?

[kenandkids]

his expressed purpose was not vitriolic debate. his expressed purpose
was disruption and insult toward atheists.

personally i find him to be the guy screaming fire in a crowded
theatre. his only and fully expressed purpose is discord and venom.
free speech does not cover someone following you around screaming
obscenities, either.
in the last day he has actually deigned to grace us with a paragraph
or two actually <gasp> sharing an opinion. so he's becoming more like
leakingrock, and less like a band of rabid chihuahuas with dirty
mouths.
i'm not voting, just making my opnion clear.

> > else...thanks for the suggestion though ;-^)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Drafterman]

On May 7, 4:24 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is simply a draw back to the format of Google Groups. Compare to
> > other styles of forums where you can have sub groups for different
> > categories. Maybe forums of this style have a "catch-all" forum where
> > anyone can post whatever they want while the other sub forums are
> > moderated to stay on topic.
>
> > Unfortunately that is not a feasible option here.
>
> That's true but we could establish a policy on Trolls. That is a feasible
> option.
>
> I think I'd like to expand my definition to simply include anyone who meets
> the definition of Internet Troll should be asked to leave or change their
> behavior.
>
> If 100% of the Owner/Mod Board agree that the person meets the definition of
> Internet Troll, and doesn't change their behavior on request or leave, we
> should ban them.
>
> We are getting a lot of Trolls and they are successfully disrupting our
> group.
>
> I'm seriously concerned about the future of this group if we don't deal with
> this problem.

In dealing with trolls I can only reiterate my statement here:

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/msg/ffdf4ff66b144189

Your solution has a narrow window of practicality based upon the size
of the moderation group. Two small and it becomes a tyranny, too large
and no one will ever agree enough to result in banning.

Another problem is that the trolls are, more often than not theists
and I believe that Brock would never vote against a theist as a matter
of course (He's a hypocrite like that). That, in effect, torpedoes
this idea in practice if not in theory.

[xnun]

------------------------------
Hmmmmm.. What if a theist set the record for most posts?

[kenandkids]

>
> We have threads which have been so disrupted that you can have to go through
> thirty posts to find one which contains debate.
>

hey! when i said this awhile back, you weren't very pleased with me
=-/

On May 7, 10:36 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)- Hide quoted text -

[Winslow]

Not possible, Oldman is only eight and Brock 10th. They have a long
way to go. Here's the record:

All time
17009 Trance Gemini
16743 LL
15417 rappoccio
13416 Dev
13353 hu...@whoever.com
13145 kmacnev...@gmail.com
9745 Drafterman
8320 OldMan
7628 Observer
7074 Brock

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Drafterman <draft...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 7, 4:24 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is simply a draw back to the format of Google Groups. Compare to
> > other styles of forums where you can have sub groups for different
> > categories. Maybe forums of this style have a "catch-all" forum where
> > anyone can post whatever they want while the other sub forums are
> > moderated to stay on topic.
>
> > Unfortunately that is not a feasible option here.
>
> That's true but we could establish a policy on Trolls. That is a feasible
> option.
>
> I think I'd like to expand my definition to simply include anyone who meets
> the definition of Internet Troll should be asked to leave or change their
> behavior.
>
> If 100% of the Owner/Mod Board agree that the person meets the definition of
> Internet Troll, and doesn't change their behavior on request or leave, we
> should ban them.
>
> We are getting a lot of Trolls and they are successfully disrupting our
> group.
>
> I'm seriously concerned about the future of this group if we don't deal with
> this problem.

In dealing with trolls I can only reiterate my statement here:

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/msg/ffdf4ff66b144189

And I don't disagree with your comments but I believe that our problem right now is that we have way too many trolls to deal with that way, and there are just way too many members who insist on feeding them (I'm guilty of that too).

So while you're right and that is the best approach, it's just not working right now.

Your solution has a narrow window of practicality based upon the size
of the moderation group. Two small and it becomes a tyranny, too large
and no one will ever agree enough to result in banning.

Another problem is that the trolls are, more often than not theists
and I believe that Brock would never vote against a theist as a matter
of course (He's a hypocrite like that). That, in effect, torpedoes
this idea in practice if not in theory.

Yes. That thought crossed my mind too. I guess we'll find out just how objective he'll be when it comes to actual Mod decisions.

I wouldn't assume anything since up until now (to be perfectly fair) he hasn't done anything problematic except for that incident with KK.

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:40 PM, kenandkids <kenan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> We have threads which have been so disrupted that you can have to go through
> thirty posts to find one which contains debate.
>

hey! when i said this awhile back, you weren't very pleased with me
=-/

It's your suggestions I don't agree with some of which have been quite outrageous and extremist in nature in my opinion.

Follows is your post:

not to mention, the sites that ignore only generally have 10-30 ed/ 
fossil/xnun quote/i hate gay/repubs are evil/etc. posts by a small 
group of individuals every day. i can tell you from experience that 
slogging through that many bullshit posts just to try and find someone 
to respond to really sucks. 

at least by hijacking or redirecting their 
crappy posts we keep dialogue moving, i mean look at some of those 
long ones; are they still the same topic as started? 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Follows is my response objecting to your suggestion that we "hijack threads" not to your statement regarding 10-30 posts:

IMO they should be ignored or banned. 

Hijacking the threads gives them exactly what they want, encourages them to 
stay, and blocks dialog by increasing the number of craps posts we have to 
go through. 

So I don't agree that's a constructive approach. 

[kenandkids]

what did i say that was extremist? in the exact thread that i said
almost the exact words you just used, i had no suggestion other than
someone talk to him privately to get him to actually contribute!
as for the following post, i was saying that - in sites that ONLY
ignore- the slogging through posts is tiresome. when someone posts
something ridiculous they are often left behind as the topic changes
and people actually begin responding to others. i'm seriously
wondering what i've suggested that is outrageous or extreme.
the one point that i've ever supported a ban is ed conrad, and i stand
by it.

On May 7, 3:07 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:40 PM, kenandkids <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > We have threads which have been so disrupted that you can have to go
> > through
> > > thirty posts to find one which contains debate.
>
> > hey! when i said this awhile back, you weren't very pleased with me
> > =-/
>
> It's your suggestions I don't agree with some of which have been quite
> outrageous and extremist in nature in my opinion.
>
> Follows is your post:
> not to mention, the sites that ignore only generally have 10-30 ed/
> fossil/xnun quote/i hate gay/repubs are evil/etc. posts by a small
> group of individuals every day. i can tell you from experience that
> slogging through that many bullshit posts just to try and find someone
> to respond to really sucks.
>
> at least by hijacking or redirecting their
> crappy posts we keep dialogue moving, i mean look at some of those
> long ones; are they still the same topic as started?
>

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----------

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:27 PM, kenandkids <kenan...@gmail.com> wrote:

what did i say that was extremist?

KK said:

"at least by hijacking or redirecting their crappy posts we keep dialogue moving, i mean look at some of those long ones; are they still the same topic as started?"

Trance:

You are advocating hijacking threads to deal with trolls. I view that as an extreme approach which is not constructive.

You have proposed this kind of thing several times now and when I object you claim that I'm objecting to something else.

For example, (and I can find the link if you want) You suggested that I share tech information about members so that some members could then stalk and bully posters like E_Space. Now I agree that E_Space is an ugly troll but I don't agree with resorting to that sort of behavior to deal with these issues.

I think you need to give some thought about some of these things that you're proposing.

Frankly you could end up in a lot of trouble talking the way that you do on news groups so my suggestions here are an effort to be helpful to you.

[simonsaysbye]

My wording was ambiguous: the evidence is not the quantity but in the
content, with my point being that there will be plenty of posts
available to get a sense of it.

[Trance Gemini]

Winslow and XNun just took advantage of the opportunity to smear me as usual by implying that I'm a troll.

This pathetic lie is the only slander they have left and of course as you can see by the definition of Internet Troll that I provided spurious at best.

 

[simonsaysbye]

On May 7, 10:10 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Your point here is a very good one. Fossil is close to spamming, but
not quite. But the point is that his activity in the group is not
disruptive (if anything I enjoy the comic relief), and he is not
trolling. So it works out ok, and the forum remains pretty open to
all and everyone.

[Trance Gemini]

Exactly. He's not as close to spamming as he was before because he's doing what I've instructed.

XNun and E_Scape are far closer to being defined as spammers than Fossil.

What is your opinion on the definition of an Internet Troll that I provided?

[simonsaysbye]

On May 8, 12:23 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is the wiki definition you link to, which is a good place to
start off:
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in
an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room,
with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional
response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

If I snip bits that I think risk getting in the way and are not
needed, you get something like:
"In AVC a troll is someone who posts irrelevant or off-topic messages
with the primary intent of disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

What do you think? ... OK it 12.37 am, I'm clocking off.

[OldMan]

I am starting to grow weary of much of what takes place on AvC
anymore. There seems to be less and less 'debate' and more and more
name calling. Some of that is to be expected, but if we are going to
be a debate forum then we should focus on how to return to that.

I do believe that your suggestion has merit, as does Max's concerning
a timeout period. The difficulty is in knowing when and how to
enforce it. Your specific suggestion is pretty straight forward;
someone says I just here to poke fun, and they are gone. But people
would quickly quit saying that if they knew the punishment was
death.

I also am not sure that making this a moderator task is appropriate.
Moderators have a pretty defined task as spam filters. Adding police
duties to that might cause more problems than it would solve. What
about having a rotating jury, selected for a period of time by regular
posters, and let them play police? Of course that would open another
controversy, and the jury would have to be carefully composed with
well defined policy. But it might could be pulled off.

[Trance Gemini]

I think that this can be kept simple or become ridiculously complicated. 

What I'm proposing is not a fundamental change.

It's a slight expansion.

Instead of banning just spammers, I'm suggesting we include banning Trolls, using the specific definition provided as we do with Spam.

I have no interest whatsoever in Max's policy or any other policy which requires that we have to babysit our membership or monitor content or restrict Free Speech in any way.

The Trolls are interfering actively with the enjoyment and Free Speech rights of the regular active posters (theist and atheist).

Their purpose is to disrupt and destroy AvC.

On the other side you have those who wish to take advantage of this opportunity to interfere actively with the Free Speech rights of everyone turning us into babysitters.

I don't agree with babysitting nor do I agree with another layer of bureaucracy either by introducing "policing". 

These concepts are destructive to and go against the foundational principles of AvC. 

My proposal is not. It is consistent with the founding principles of AvC.

Frankly this is getting quite ridiculous.

In my opinion, ALL that's required is that we agree on the following:

1. Trolling is now a bannable offence like Spamming.

2. Trolls are defined as per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

3. A 100% consensus will be required of the Mod Board to identify someone as a Troll and ban them.

Simple, Uncomplicated, Doesn't violate the foundation that AvC was built on in any way.

Continues to ensure that Free Speech rights are protected.

No change whatsoever has occurred to how AvC operates.

If we adopt Max's or Brock's proposal or any of the other proposals that have been made the Free Speech foundation that is AvC will be destroyed.

If that happens I can pretty much guarantee that a Lot of people will leave AvC.

I thought you wanted to maintain AvC - what's with the change?

Are we going to let a bunch of pathological liars force us into making more and more draconian changes to AvC?

These are people who by every action have proven that they simply want to destroy our group. 

Why should we react to anything they try to push us into?

[OldMan]

I do not want to change what AvC was setup to be, an open debate forum
dealing with atheism and Christianity. But I am open to new ways to
accomplish that. I do not want AvC to be destroyed.

>
> Are we going to let a bunch of pathological liars force us into making more
> and more draconian changes to AvC?
>
> These are people who by every action have proven that they simply want to
> destroy our group.
>
> Why should we react to anything they try to push us into?

I do not want to react. But I do want to have policy setup that will
guide what we do. And that is oftentimes driven by new circumstances,
just like what is driving your suggestion. By no means am I arguing
against your proposal. I am just trying to explore options that will
allow us to be the best we can. It's been a long day and is past my
bedtime. Let's just continue to explore for a while.

[Dev]

Let's assume there's a deity who wants xnun to do what she does. Why
did said deity make it equally likely that OldMan's deity is real
based on His curses of reason and evidence?

There's no grounds for censoring xnun/e_space/trog or any of its other
identities. Sorry. There is no thetard that is offering rationality as
a precious gift to this discussion. Just because some thetards pretend
to try to be reasonable doesn't change this. A thetard admitting to
not trying to participate in a reasonable conversation is just a more
self-conscious and frankly honest thetard. I don't think we should ban
for honesty.

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:58 PM, OldMan <edja...@msn.com> wrote:
>> Are we going to let a bunch of pathological liars force us into making more
>> and more draconian changes to AvC?
>>
>> These are people who by every action have proven that they simply want to
>> destroy our group.
>>
>> Why should we react to anything they try to push us into?
>
> I do not want to react.  But I do want to have policy setup that will
> guide what we do.  And that is oftentimes driven by new circumstances,
> just like what is driving your suggestion.  By no means am I arguing
> against your proposal.  I am just trying to explore options that will
> allow us to be the best we can.  It's been a long day and is past my
> bedtime.  Let's just continue to explore for a while.

I thought Max brought up a good topic to explore regarding other
moderation options, perhaps its worth reconsidering:

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/browse_thread/thread/8a271f0c4af980c5

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we adopt Max's or Brock's proposal or any of the other proposals that
> have been made the Free Speech foundation that is AvC will be destroyed.
> If that happens I can pretty much guarantee that a Lot of people will leave
> AvC.

That line of reasoning is starting to sound more and more like an
implicit threat and less like a neutral analysis ... Max made a
thoughtful and considerate post[1], one that is clearly not about
"destroying AvC".

> Are we going to let a bunch of pathological liars force us into making more
> and more draconian changes to AvC?

I think your analysis does a disservice; Max is not a pathological
liar for constructively proposing[2] in the thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/browse_thread/thread/8a271f0c4af980c5

Regards,

Brock

[1] and of course, I've shared my position for the record as well.
[2] (nor am I for stating my position for the record, as I did earlier)

[trog69]

[1] and of course, I've shared my position for the record as well.

Really? That's funny, 'cause the mods themselves are asking you for your input, yet you've never given anything but a vague "i say we do something about the vitriol and cursing". So, once again, you are shown to be a liar, because contrary to your assertion, none of the mods has any idea of what you are proposing, since you refuse to say.

[Max]

This will be my last word on the matter.

I don't agree with babysitting nor do I agree with another layer of
bureaucracy either by introducing "policing".

Max: Suspension does none of this. Like banning someone, suspension is
simply decided upon & implemented. You flick a switch on & then after
the prescribed period, you switch it back on. How hard is that?

These concepts are destructive to and go against the foundational
principles
of AvC.

Max: As suspension is neither destructive nor does it go against so
called 'foundational principles', this is just empty rhetoric.

My proposal is not. It is consistent with the founding principles of
AvC.

Max: Your proposal is no different from what I suggested earlier,
other than your proposed sanction is banning, not suspension of which
my suggestion is addition to, not as opposed to.

Frankly this is getting quite ridiculous.

Max: I agree

In my opinion, ALL that's required is that we agree on the following:

1. Trolling is now a bannable offence like Spamming.

Max: Just as I suggested

2. Trolls are defined as per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Max: And here's your problem. I can find a troll post with probably
100% of regular posters in this group, including me if you use this
definition. The issue of appropriate sanctions requires subjective
judgement in determining thematic spamming trolling behaviour. This is
why, IMO Mods who have the power to kill a troll, can also suspend 'em
if there are borderline issues or ban them if it's conclusive and
unanimously decided upon. It's called giving an offender a second
chance to redeem themselves.

3. A 100% consensus will be required of the Mod Board to identify
someone as
a Troll and ban them.

Max: I also came up with this one as well, after the initial kicking I
got.

Simple, Uncomplicated, Doesn't violate the foundation that AvC was
built on
in any way.

Max: Same as having suspension as an option.

Continues to ensure that Free Speech rights are protected.

Max: Eh? For whom, the banned offender or the rest of the group.
Suspension as a first offence sanction offers a shit load more scope
of 'free speech' for the offender, 'cause they'll be back. A banned
individual is gone for good. Where's the fuckin' free speech in that.

No change whatsoever has occurred to how AvC operates.

Max: Not sure about that.

If we adopt Max's or Brock's proposal or any of the other proposals
that
have been made the Free Speech foundation that is AvC will be
destroyed.

Max: Don't lump me in with Brocks suggestions. I volunteered my
suggestion of suspension before anyone & qualified & defended it,
after the bollocking I got. That's almost a fucking smear as far as
I'm concerned.

If that happens I can pretty much guarantee that a Lot of people will
leave

Max: Your's fuckin' right there might. It ain't hard. Ban 'em or
suspend 'em based on you, the Mods 100% agreed decision.

I'm done


AvC.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

Let's assume there's a deity who wants xnun to do what she does. Why
did said deity make it equally likely that OldMan's deity is real
based on His curses of reason and evidence?

There's no grounds for censoring xnun/e_space/trog or any of its other
identities. Sorry. There is no thetard that is offering rationality as
a precious gift to this discussion. Just because some thetards pretend
to try to be reasonable doesn't change this. A thetard admitting to
not trying to participate in a reasonable conversation is just a more
self-conscious and frankly honest thetard. I don't think we should ban
for honesty.

Here is the definition of Internet Troll. 

Both fit that definition to a Tee based on their posts and should be banned on that basis and no other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll 

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:32 AM, trog69 <tom.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [1] and of course, I've shared my position for the record as well.
>
> Really? That's funny,

Yes, my position is available at:

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/msg/62cd0537828cb412

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we adopt Max's or Brock's proposal or any of the other proposals that
> have been made the Free Speech foundation that is AvC will be destroyed.
> If that happens I can pretty much guarantee that a Lot of people will leave
> AvC.

That line of reasoning is starting to sound more and more like an
implicit threat and less like a neutral analysis ...  Max made a
thoughtful and considerate post[1], one that is clearly not about
"destroying AvC".

In your opinion and only because your goal *is* to destroy AvC as it currently exists (An open and free and unmoderated forum) to a moderated forum under draconian rules based on your definition of cursing, vitriol, etc which is a big secret simply because you refuse to share.

ACRD which followed your direction and was exactly what you wanted is currently dead in the water.

Of course, to anyone who actually gave that some thought they would clue in to the fact that approach doesn't work, people don't like it and people leave.

Don't bother responding.

I'm not interested in your bullshit autistic style responses where you ignore everything I say and distort my responses to suit your agenda instead of making any effort to engage in honest sincere discussion with the purpose of actually resolving any issues.

> Are we going to let a bunch of pathological liars force us into making more
> and more draconian changes to AvC?

I think your analysis does a disservice;  Max is not a pathological
liar for constructively proposing[2] in the thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/browse_thread/thread/8a271f0c4af980c5

Regards,

Brock

[1] and of course, I've shared my position for the record as well.
[2] (nor am I for stating my position for the record, as I did earlier)

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we adopt Max's or Brock's proposal or any of the other proposals that
> have been made the Free Speech foundation that is AvC will be destroyed.
> If that happens I can pretty much guarantee that a Lot of people will leave
> AvC.

That line of reasoning is starting to sound more and more like an
implicit threat and less like a neutral analysis ...  Max made a
thoughtful and considerate post[1], one that is clearly not about
"destroying AvC".

> Are we going to let a bunch of pathological liars force us into making more
> and more draconian changes to AvC?

I think your analysis does a disservice;  Max is not a pathological
liar for constructively proposing[2] in the thread:

No Max isn't but in my opinion you certainly are for implying that I said Max was.

 

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/browse_thread/thread/8a271f0c4af980c5

Regards,

Brock

[1] and of course, I've shared my position for the record as well.
[2] (nor am I for stating my position for the record, as I did earlier)

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:32 AM, trog69 <tom.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

[1] and of course, I've shared my position for the record as well.

Really? That's funny, 'cause the mods themselves are asking you for your input, yet you've never given anything but a vague "i say we do something about the vitriol and cursing". So, once again, you are shown to be a liar, because contrary to your assertion, none of the mods has any idea of what you are proposing, since you refuse to say.

He's been asked repeatedly to provide specifications and a concrete proposal.

He should be removed from the Mod Board for his lack of interest in being a Mod.

He has no idea what's going on at the main site and simply plays games here.

 

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we adopt Max's or Brock's proposal or any of the other proposals that
> have been made the Free Speech foundation that is AvC will be destroyed.
> If that happens I can pretty much guarantee that a Lot of people will leave
> AvC.

That line of reasoning is starting to sound more and more like an
implicit threat and less like a neutral analysis ...  Max made a
thoughtful and considerate post[1], one that is clearly not about
"destroying AvC".

> Are we going to let a bunch of pathological liars force us into making more
> and more draconian changes to AvC?

I think your analysis does a disservice;  Max is not a pathological
liar for constructively proposing[2] in the thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/browse_thread/thread/8a271f0c4af980c5

Regards,

Brock

[1] and of course, I've shared my position for the record as well.
[2] (nor am I for stating my position for the record, as I did earlier)

--

Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.
~ Kurt Vonnegut

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 6:47 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

This will be my last word on the matter.

I don't agree with babysitting nor do I agree with another layer of
bureaucracy either by introducing "policing".

Max: Suspension does none of this. Like banning someone, suspension is
simply decided upon & implemented. You flick a switch on & then after
the prescribed period, you switch it back on. How hard is that?

These concepts are destructive to and go against the foundational
principles
of AvC.

Max: As suspension is neither destructive nor does it go against so
called 'foundational principles', this is just empty rhetoric.

My proposal is not. It is consistent with the founding principles of
AvC.

It goes against the founding principles of AvC because you are asking us to punish people based on the content of their posts.

I have no interest in doing so and the founding principles of AvC (free and open discussion) without being smacked on the hand by mommy for saying Fuck goes against your proposal.

It is identical to Brocks and like Brock you refuse to define anything.

The Mods are just supposed to read your mind and figure out what you mean by "spam troll" and figure out what degrees of "spam troll" should be punished by what degrees of hand smacking or time outs.

If you or Brock are serious.

Provide a detailed list of definitions of crimes.

Provide a detailed list of punishments associated with each crime.

For example:

Crime 1- 1 week suspension

Crime 2- 2 week suspension

etc.

Until you do that we are not in a position to evaluate your proposal or take it seriously.

 

Max: Your proposal is no different from what I suggested earlier,
other than your proposed sanction is banning, not suspension of which
my suggestion is addition to, not as opposed to.

Frankly this is getting quite ridiculous.

Max: I agree

In my opinion, ALL that's required is that we agree on the following:

1. Trolling is now a bannable offence like Spamming.

Max: Just as I suggested

That's not what you suggested. However, if you accept it now that is fine.

 

2. Trolls are defined as per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Max: And here's your problem. I can find a troll post with probably
100% of regular posters in this group, including me if you use this
definition.

Nonsense. This is an extreme and ridiculous assessment.

XNun and E_Space fit the description provided by definition, without doubt, and based on 99% of their posts.

 

The issue of appropriate sanctions requires subjective
judgement in determining thematic spamming trolling behaviour. This is
why, IMO Mods who have the power to kill a troll, can also suspend 'em

If they're trolling they're disrupting the site and attempting to destroy it by definition.

They should be banned. Period.

You should read the definition of Internet Troll and understand what it is.

I am not talking about people who do stupid things from time to time.

I think it's quite disgusting that certain theists want to take advantage of this opportunity that was created by Theist Trolls in the first place (makes me wonder frankly) to push their desire to invoke draconian rules on our membership.

The only result of that will be assholes like Brock punishing every atheist who says fuck while allowing Theist Trolls like XNun to incite as many death threats against me and other people she doesn't like as often as she wants.

if there are borderline issues or ban them if it's conclusive and
unanimously decided upon. It's called giving an offender a second
chance to redeem themselves.

We don't care unless they are hard-core trolls or become hard-core trolls.

 

3. A 100% consensus will be required of the Mod Board to identify
someone as
a Troll and ban them.

Max: I also came up with this one as well, after the initial kicking I
got.

Simple, Uncomplicated, Doesn't violate the foundation that AvC was
built on
in any way.

Max: Same as having suspension as an option. 

Continues to ensure that Free Speech rights are protected.

Max: Eh? For whom, the banned offender or the rest of the group.
Suspension as a first offence sanction offers a shit load more scope
of 'free speech' for the offender, 'cause they'll be back. A banned
individual is gone for good. Where's the fuckin' free speech in that.

People who are Trolling by definition aren't engaging in constructive behavior on the group. 

Do you understand what an Internet Troll is? They aren't children who are misbehaving. 

If one someone is designated as a Troll it's serious Max.

Now define the degree of the crime which qualifies for a suspension and which doesn't and what kind of suspension belongs with which degree of the crime etc etc.

You are giving some vague bullshit about how we should smack some people on the hand, put some people in the corner for a time out and some people should be forced to wear a dunce cap but you won't say under what circumstances should each occur.

Get specific if that's what you want.

I asked Brock to do the same thing when he made exactly the same proposal and like you he ignored every request.

You and Brock are the ones engaging in empty rhetoric and refusing to provide a concrete proposal.

I have provided one.

 

No change whatsoever has occurred to how AvC operates.

Max: Not sure about that.

If we adopt Max's or Brock's proposal or any of the other proposals
that
have been made the Free Speech foundation that is AvC will be
destroyed.

Max: Don't lump me in with Brocks suggestions. I volunteered my
suggestion of suspension before anyone & qualified & defended it,
after the bollocking I got. That's almost a fucking smear as far as
I'm concerned.

Not when it's true.

You made the identical suggestion as Brock.

Now you're trying to claim that you are making the same suggestion that I am.

And neither of you is willing to define your terms whether it comes to defining the crime or the punishment.

Please do so if you want anyone to take your proposal seriously.

My proposal identifies exactly what a Troll is and the punishment is banning.

Neither you or Brock have identified the degrees of crimes nor the degrees of punishment which you purport should occur.

[Max]

As I've said before, my position is clear. Others can decide.

Max

> ...
>
> read more »

[Answer_42]

On May 7, 5:32 pm, Winslow <johnwinslow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Trolls will by definition have many many posts; that should is
> > evidence enough of their intent.
>

> Like more than 233 posts in a month, or 17009 overall?

Thank you for proving that you are an idiot, and possibly a troll as
well.

The point simonsaysbye was making was not:
Many posts = troll.

Read it again, in context, I know it is hard, but if you print it out
in large characters and use different colour highlighters to highlight
the various verbs and their associated clauses, you might understand
the post, if mummy is around to help you, that is.
_____________________________________
Christ preaches only servitude and dependence.... True Christians are
made to be slaves.
-- Jean Jacques Rousseau

[dead kennedy]

once again a couple of twits have got the regulars on this group into
a flame war distracting from the main reason of AvC. IMHO the mods
have done a great job over the last few months on the main site and
they have my thanx.

BUT again people who are happy to have decent debate and keep AvC
going, are here arguing over dickwads (ala liam et al).

i propose the following rule:-

dont feed the fuckin trolls!

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:10 AM, dead kennedy <dead.k...@googlemail.com> wrote:

once again a couple of twits have got the regulars on this group into
a flame war distracting from the main reason of AvC. IMHO the mods
have done a great job over the last few months on the main site and
they have my thanx.

BUT again people who are happy to have decent debate and keep AvC
going, are here arguing over dickwads (ala liam et al).

i propose the following rule:-

dont feed the fuckin trolls!

I agree unfortunately it isn't working for various reasons, and the number of trolls is not only increasing but they're getting uglier and far more disruptive.

If we don't deal with them we can just call AvC Troll Haven in a few months and we'll all be forced to abandon it because the Trolls will have taken it over.

On 8 May, 14:01, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 5:32 pm, Winslow <johnwinslow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Trolls will by definition have many many posts; that should is
> > > evidence enough of their intent.
>
> > Like more than 233 posts in a month, or 17009 overall?
>
> Thank you for proving that you are an idiot, and possibly a troll as
> well.
>
> The point simonsaysbye was making was not:
> Many posts = troll.
>
> Read it again, in context, I know it is hard, but if you print it out
> in large characters and use different colour highlighters to highlight
> the various verbs and their associated clauses, you might understand
> the post, if mummy is around to help you, that is.
> _____________________________________
> Christ preaches only servitude and dependence.... True Christians are
> made to be slaves.
> -- Jean Jacques Rousseau

[kenandkids]

it's only ok to suggest banning people when your name is trance.
otherwise, you will be dismissed as morally bankrupt, even if you
didn't suggest banning the people that she believes you suggested
banning, which are now the people she wants banned.

> ...
>
> read more »

[dead kennedy]

e-spac seems to be attempting to debate at the moment, i almost
replied to one of his posts just now so i consider him on probation.

xnun has personally attacked you and is a nasty peice of work so
although i remain neutral i would smile inwardly if she was jetisoned
(other than michelle g, who are her other sock-puppets btw?)

fossil and the other nutcase carboniferous man gezzer IMO are quite
funny :0)

its just a shame that you, trog, kk are here arguing amongst
yourselves, rather than giving us the pleasure of your collective
company on the main board.

On 8 May, 15:29, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:10 AM, dead kennedy

> <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com>wrote:

[Multiverse]

Yes, obviously ignoring the fact that Brock is not fit to be a Mod has
not worked. I strongly support the ownership bring closure to this
problem and remove Brock as a Mod ASAP. Brock is an absolute mockery
to the concept of trying to work TOGETHER for anything.

On May 8, 7:52 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:32 AM, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [1] and of course, I've shared my position for the record as well.
>
> > Really? That's funny, 'cause the mods themselves are asking you for your
> > input, yet you've never given anything but a vague "i say we do something
> > about the vitriol and cursing". So, once again, you are shown to be a liar,
> > because contrary to your assertion, none of the mods has any idea of what
> > you are proposing, since you refuse to say.
>
> He's been asked repeatedly to provide specifications and a concrete
> proposal.
>
> He should be removed from the Mod Board for his lack of interest in being a
> Mod.
>
> He has no idea what's going on at the main site and simply plays games here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>

> >> wrote:
> >> > If we adopt Max's or Brock's proposal or any of the other proposals that
> >> > have been made the Free Speech foundation that is AvC will be destroyed.
> >> > If that happens I can pretty much guarantee that a Lot of people will
> >> leave
> >> > AvC.
>
> >> That line of reasoning is starting to sound more and more like an
> >> implicit threat and less like a neutral analysis ...  Max made a
> >> thoughtful and considerate post[1], one that is clearly not about
> >> "destroying AvC".
>
> >> > Are we going to let a bunch of pathological liars force us into making
> >> more
> >> > and more draconian changes to AvC?
>
> >> I think your analysis does a disservice;  Max is not a pathological
> >> liar for constructively proposing[2] in the thread:
>

> >>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-foru...

>
> >> Regards,
>
> >> Brock
>
> >> [1] and of course, I've shared my position for the record as well.
> >> [2] (nor am I for stating my position for the record, as I did earlier)
>
> > --
> > Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.
> > ~ Kurt Vonnegut
>
> --
> “You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns

[Multiverse]

On May 8, 10:10 am, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> once again a couple of twits have got the regulars on this group into
> a flame war distracting from the main reason of AvC. IMHO the mods
> have done a great job over the last few months on the main site and
> they have my thanx.
>
> BUT again people who are happy to have decent debate and keep AvC
> going, are here arguing over dickwads (ala liam et al).
>
> i propose the following rule:-
>
> dont feed the fuckin trolls!

I SECOND THE MOTION.

>
> On 8 May, 14:01, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 5:32 pm, Winslow <johnwinslow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Trolls will by definition have many many posts; that should is
> > > > evidence enough of their intent.
>
> > > Like more than 233 posts in a month, or 17009 overall?
>
> > Thank you for proving that you are an idiot, and possibly a troll as
> > well.
>
> > The point simonsaysbye was making was not:
> > Many posts = troll.
>
> > Read it again, in context, I know it is hard, but if you print it out
> > in large characters and use different colour highlighters to highlight
> > the various verbs and their associated clauses, you might understand
> > the post, if mummy is around to help you, that is.
> > _____________________________________
> > Christ preaches only servitude and dependence.... True Christians are
> > made to be slaves.

> > -- Jean Jacques Rousseau- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:42 AM, dead kennedy <dead.k...@googlemail.com> wrote:

e-spac seems to be attempting to debate at the moment, i almost
replied to one of his posts just now so i consider him on probation.

That's part of his trolling pattern. When everyone ignores him he posts something elaborate then just abuses everyone he responds to.

He's interacting a bit with DMan so we'll see  if that continues, but post after  post of just abuse is not acceptable and we are losing good debaters because of this.

xnun has personally attacked you and is a nasty peice of work so

I'm actually not concerned about XNun in this particular case since I've already filed an Abuse complaint against her in association with the Death Threat complaint.

 

although i remain neutral i would smile inwardly if she was jetisoned
(other than michelle g, who are her other sock-puppets btw?)

Thetard, Galocust9, XNun and Michele Gennette.

There are two others that aren't members here under there sock puppet emails but they may be under other emails.

 

fossil and the other nutcase carboniferous man gezzer  IMO are quite
funny :0)

They aren't trolling either. We negotiated the terms of behavior with them and they have stuck to those terms.

They don't do any of the things they've been doing on other sites.

 

its just a shame that you, trog, kk are here arguing amongst
yourselves, rather than giving us the pleasure of your collective
company on the main board.

I agree and hate fighting with my friends but I have to be honest with myself and with them.

If they can't handle that I can't help them.

I won't lie or change my opinions just to "get along".

[Winslow]

On May 7, 6:14 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 7:10 PM, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 10:32 pm, Winslow <johnwinslow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On May 7, 3:54 pm, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Trolls will by definition have many many posts; that should is
> > > > evidence enough of their intent.
>
> > > Like more than 233 posts in a month, or 17009 overall?
>

> > My wording was ambiguous: the evidence is not the quantity but in the
> > content, with my point being that there will be plenty of posts
> > available to get a sense of it.
>
> Winslow and XNun just took advantage of the opportunity to smear me as usual
> by implying that I'm a troll.

For the record, I did not imply that. I was only getting an elaborate
explanation from Simon and he did. I'm contented with his explanation
that content is what he meant and not quantity.

> This pathetic lie is the only slander they have left and of course as you
> can see by the definition of Internet Troll that I provided spurious at
> best.

You assumed my intent and it was wrong. It was wrong also to brand it
a lie. Where is the lie in my question?

BTW, any troll rule sounds idiotic. Those people who brand people as
trolls are those who have been lost in discussions. The only way that
they can get back to their opponent is to brand them as trolls. Very
lame tactic in any discussion group indeed.

[Winslow]

On May 7, 6:10 pm, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> On May 7, 10:32 pm, Winslow <johnwinslow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 3:54 pm, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Trolls will by definition have many many posts; that should is
> > > evidence enough of their intent.
>
> > Like more than 233 posts in a month, or 17009 overall?
>
> My wording was ambiguous:

Yes it was.

> the evidence is not the quantity but in the
> content, with my point being that there will be plenty of posts
> available to get a sense of it.

Thanks for the explanation, now it makes a lot of sense.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Winslow <johnwin...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 7, 6:14 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 7:10 PM, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 10:32 pm, Winslow <johnwinslow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 7, 3:54 pm, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Trolls will by definition have many many posts; that should is
> > > > evidence enough of their intent.
>
> > > Like more than 233 posts in a month, or 17009 overall?
>
> > My wording was ambiguous: the evidence is not the quantity but in the
> > content, with my point being that there will be plenty of posts
> > available to get a sense of it.
>
> Winslow and XNun just took advantage of the opportunity to smear me as usual
> by implying that I'm a troll.

For the record, I did not imply that. I was only getting an elaborate
explanation from Simon and he did. I'm contented with his explanation
that content is what he meant and not quantity.

Really?

Then why respond with the following loaded question:

"Like more than 233 posts in a month, or 17009 overall?"

Which, Gee, Coincidentally is approximately my stats?

If you weren't making the ugly implication that I was a troll but being too chicken shit to come right out and say it.

> This pathetic lie is the only slander they have left and of course as you
> can see by the definition of Internet Troll that I provided spurious at
> best.

You assumed my intent and it was wrong. It was wrong also to brand it
a lie. Where is the lie in my question? 

BTW, any troll rule sounds idiotic. Those people who brand people as
trolls are those who have been lost in discussions. The only way that
they can get back to their opponent is to brand them as trolls. Very
lame tactic in any discussion group indeed.

>
>
> --

> “You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns
> out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)

[Medusa]

On May 7, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd like to pose this question to the Mod Team and Owners for an
> Opinion and would appreciate it if everyone weighed in.
>
> When someone openly states that their sole purpose for being on AvC is
> to disrupt the group should we be ignoring this or should we be asking
> them to leave and banning them if they continue to disrupt?

IMO, people who enter a debate forum only to disrupt the group should
be asked to leave.

> What affect would this have on Free Speech in your opinion?
>
> In my opinion, someone who admits or shows by their actions that they
> have no intention or interest in debating on AvC which is a debating
> forum should be asked to leave and if they refuse be banned from
> participating.

This action would be a violation of free speech, in my opinion. I
usually just scroll over and ignore such posters. They remind me of
"flashers" seen on the street; exposing themselves just for a
reaction.

But I will support whatever the rest of the group decides.

> This is not a comment on the content of their posts but on their
> behavior and actions.
>
> The minimum requirement for joining AvC should be that you wish to
> debate.

That would be what I would wish for, too. But there are always going
to be morons out there.

Medusa

[Trance Gemini]

Thanks Medusa for your thoughtful input.

[Trance Gemini]

Thanks Medusa for your thoughtful input.

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Medusa <Medus...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[BlueSci]

On May 7, 6:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to pose this question to the Mod Team and Owners for an
> Opinion and would appreciate it if everyone weighed in.
>
> When someone openly states that their sole purpose for being on AvC is
> to disrupt the group should we be ignoring this or should we be asking
> them to leave and banning them if they continue to disrupt?

I'm just as sick and tired of all the sniping and bickering that has
been going on lately as anyone, but I'll just reiterate what I and
others have said: Don't want trolls disrupting the group? QUIT
FEEDING THEM! These people wouldn't be able to disrupt the group if
others didn't engage them. I think that people who continually engage
trolls must get some enjoyment out of it or they would quit doing it.
Either that or they can't control themselves for some reason, but
that's their problem not mine.

>
> What affect would this have on Free Speech in your opinion?

The more limits we put on speech, the less free it is. I think that
if people enjoy feeding the trolls, then they ought to be free to do
that. I think it's pretty stupid, but I'm not here to keep people
from doing stupid things.

>
> In my opinion, someone who admits or shows by their actions that they
> have no intention or interest in debating on AvC which is a debating
> forum should be asked to leave and if they refuse be banned from
> participating.
>

> This is not a comment on the content of their posts but on their
> behavior and actions.

I'm not here to regulate adults' behavior. I expect adults to control
their own behavior. What I find ironic is that it seems to be the
troll feeders that are doing the most complaining about them. If I
were to see people refrain from responding or start seeing a lot of
complaints from those who didn't engage the trolls, then I might take
the complaints more seriously. I don't want to see this group ruined
by trolls either, but if people insist on engaging them, they have
only themselves to blame

It seems to me that what you're really advocating is not limiting the
speech of trolls but suggesting that we remove temptation from those
who are unable to control themselves. I want this to be a group where
the majority of people are mature adults that can regulate their own
behavior. If it turns into a group where we have to protect people
from themselves, then I'd rather not be a part of it.

>
> The minimum requirement for joining AvC should be that you wish to
> debate.
>

[BlueSci]

On May 7, 6:52 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that this can be kept simple or become ridiculously complicated.
> What I'm proposing is not a fundamental change.
>
> It's a slight expansion.
>
> Instead of banning just spammers, I'm suggesting we include banning Trolls,
> using the specific definition provided as we do with Spam.

That looks like a fundamental change to me.

>
> I have no interest whatsoever in Max's policy or any other policy which
> requires that we have to babysit our membership or monitor content or
> restrict Free Speech in any way.
>
> The Trolls are interfering actively with the enjoyment and Free Speech
> rights of the regular active posters (theist and atheist).
>
> Their purpose is to disrupt and destroy AvC.
>
> On the other side you have those who wish to take advantage of this
> opportunity to interfere actively with the Free Speech rights of everyone
> turning us into babysitters.
>
> I don't agree with babysitting nor do I agree with another layer of
> bureaucracy either by introducing "policing".

But you are suggesting we babysit our members, you're just saying that
we should babysit the troll feeders instead of the trolls. You're
saying that since some people here are unable to control themselves
that we should remove the trolls so they're not tempted to respond to
them. It sounds a lot to me like separating unruly children that
can't refrain from fighting.

>
> These concepts are destructive to and go against the foundational principles
> of AvC.
>
> My proposal is not. It is consistent with the founding principles of AvC.
>
> Frankly this is getting quite ridiculous.
>
> In my opinion, ALL that's required is that we agree on the following:
>
> 1. Trolling is now a bannable offence like Spamming.
> 2. Trolls are defined as per:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
> 3. A 100% consensus will be required of the Mod Board to identify someone as
> a Troll and ban them.

You mean this definition?: "someone who posts controversial,
inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages" I can think of at
least 1 person that fits this to a T (though we wouldn't get a 100%
consensus on banning him).

>
> Simple, Uncomplicated, Doesn't violate the foundation that AvC was built on
> in any way.

I have a much simpler proposal. Let's see people quit feeding the
trolls first. If a troll then persists on clogging the group with
posts that no one is responding to, then we ban them.

>
> Continues to ensure that Free Speech rights are protected.
>
> No change whatsoever has occurred to how AvC operates.
>

> If we adopt Max's or Brock's proposal or any of the other proposals that
> have been made the Free Speech foundation that is AvC will be destroyed.
>
> If that happens I can pretty much guarantee that a Lot of people will leave
> AvC.
>

> I thought you wanted to maintain AvC - what's with the change?
>

> Are we going to let a bunch of pathological liars force us into making more
> and more draconian changes to AvC?

Are we too immature to not let these trolls bait us into responding?
(Hint: If you don't read their posts, then you won't be tempted by
the bait.)

>
> These are people who by every action have proven that they simply want to
> destroy our group.
>
> Why should we react to anything they try to push us into?

So why do you? You don't have to react to them, you choose to do so.
Why do you want me to protect you from the choices you are making?

>
>
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:16 PM, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > I am starting to grow weary of much of what takes place on AvC

> > anymore.  There seems to be less and less 'debate' and more and more
> > name calling.  Some of that is to be expected, but if we are going to
> > be a debate forum then we should focus on how to return to that.
>
> > I do believe that your suggestion has merit, as does Max's concerning
> > a timeout period.  The difficulty is in knowing when and how to
> > enforce it.  Your specific suggestion is pretty straight forward;

> > someone says I just here to poke fun, and they are gone.  But people
> > would quickly quit saying that if they knew the punishment was
> > death.
>
> > I also am not sure that making this a moderator task is appropriate.
> > Moderators have a pretty defined task as spam filters.  Adding police
> > duties to that might cause more problems than it would solve.  What
> > about having a rotating jury, selected for a period of time by regular
> > posters, and let them play police?  Of course that would open another
> > controversy, and the jury would have to be carefully composed with
> > well defined policy.  But it might could be pulled off.
>

> > On May 7, 6:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'd like to pose this question to the Mod Team and Owners for an
> > > Opinion and would appreciate it if everyone weighed in.
>
> > > When someone openly states that their sole purpose for being on AvC is
> > > to disrupt the group should we be ignoring this or should we be asking
> > > them to leave and banning them if they continue to disrupt?
>

> > > What affect would this have on Free Speech in your opinion?
>

> > > In my opinion, someone who admits or shows by their actions that they
> > > have no intention or interest in debating on AvC which is a debating
> > > forum should be asked to leave and if they refuse be banned from
> > > participating.
>
> > > This is not a comment on the content of their posts but on their
> > > behavior and actions.
>

[Answer_42]

On May 8, 11:51 am, Winslow <johnwinslow...@gmail.com> wrote:


> > > My wording was ambiguous: the evidence is not the quantity but in the
> > > content, with my point being that there will be plenty of posts
> > > available to get a sense of it.
>
> > Winslow and XNun just took advantage of the opportunity to smear me as usual
> > by implying that I'm a troll.
>
> For the record, I did not imply that. I was only getting an elaborate
> explanation from Simon and he did. I'm contented with his explanation
> that content is what he meant and not quantity.
>
> > This pathetic lie is the only slander they have left and of course as you
> > can see by the definition of Internet Troll that I provided spurious at
> > best.
>
> You assumed my intent and it was wrong. It was wrong also to brand it
> a lie. Where is the lie in my question?
>
> BTW, any troll rule sounds idiotic. Those people who brand people as
> trolls are those who have been lost in discussions. The only way that

Can you provide evidence of that?

> they can get back to their opponent is to brand them as trolls. Very
> lame tactic in any discussion group indeed.

Yes, it it were the case.
This from a poster who has no clue what an Ad Hominem is, but screams
Ad Hominem as soon as the heat goes up a notch.
I am not surprised that you think that "troll" is a label corned
debaters invented to help them get out of the corner... I matches your
M.O., yet you seem totally oblivious of that fact.
_____________________________________________

[Answer_42]

On May 8, 11:57 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Trolls will by definition have many many posts; that should is
> > > > > > evidence enough of their intent.
>
> > > > > Like more than 233 posts in a month, or 17009 overall?
>
> > > > My wording was ambiguous: the evidence is not the quantity but in the
> > > > content, with my point being that there will be plenty of posts
> > > > available to get a sense of it.
>
> > > Winslow and XNun just took advantage of the opportunity to smear me as
> > usual
> > > by implying that I'm a troll.
>
> > For the record, I did not imply that. I was only getting an elaborate
> > explanation from Simon and he did. I'm contented with his explanation
> > that content is what he meant and not quantity.
>
> Really?
>
> Then why respond with the following loaded question:
>
> "Like more than 233 posts in a month, or 17009 overall?"
>
> Which, Gee, Coincidentally is approximately my stats?
>
> If you weren't making the ugly implication that I was a troll but being too
> chicken shit to come right out and say it.

Yep, he did the same thing in a another thread.

He makes statements that are in fact innuendos matching a totally
different agenda his words pretend to be following.

When we confront him, he sticks to the words he wrote as if we were
too dumb to realize what he was actually saying with his seemingly
innocent unrelated comments.

Totally disingenuous, but it is OK, he's got Jeebus on his side.

[Answer_42]

On May 7, 7:10 pm, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:

> > > Trolls will by definition have many many posts; that should is
> > > evidence enough of their intent.
>
> > Like more than 233 posts in a month, or 17009 overall?
>
> My wording was ambiguous:

No, in the context of your post, it was not, only disingenuous retards
looking for blaming others for their own inadequacies would have
thought that you were lamely suggesting that high numbers of posts
means that the poster is a troll.
Or people who need remedial classes in reading comprehension and basic
logic.

> the evidence is not the quantity but in the
> content, with my point being that there will be plenty of posts
> available to get a sense of it.

[Trance Gemini]

That is what Brock and Max are saying.

I'm not saying that.

There is a definition for a Troll that is specific and generally recognized.

I'm simply suggesting that we ban Trolls as well as Spammers for much the same reasons.

Why are you for banning Spammers? and against banning Trolls?

[Trance Gemini]

Yes. It's okay to be a pathological liar if you have Jeebus on your side.

And, of course, god hates all the same people you do?

 

_____________________________________________
Christ preaches only servitude and dependence.... True Christians are
made to be slaves.
-- Jean Jacques Rousseau

[philosophy]

On May 8, 3:36 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On May 7, 9:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'd like to pose this question to the Mod Team and Owners for an
> > > Opinion and would appreciate it if everyone weighed in.
>
> > > When someone openly states that their sole purpose for being on AvC is
> > > to disrupt the group should we be ignoring this or should we be asking
> > > them to leave and banning them if they continue to disrupt?
>

> > Totally agree.
> > If someone states thay they are not interested in debating, for
> > whatver reason, then sayonara...
>
> > Others do not state it openly but almost do, like manny, xnun or
> > maggie for instance.
> > They have not claimed, like e_space did, "I do not want to debate."
> > but have frequently stated "Debating is useless... what is the
> > point... get a life..." etc.
> > And then the never participate in any discussion in any meaningful
> > way.
> > They should also be booted out.
>
> > When soneone joins and behaves like that, we all attempt to show them
> > how unreasonable they are, if they persists with their
> > unreasonableness, why keep them around and have them clutter the
> > threads with their nonsense?

>
> > > What affect would this have on Free Speech in your opinion?
>
> > > In my opinion, someone who admits or shows by their actions that they
> > > have no intention or interest in debating on AvC which is a debating
> > > forum should be asked to leave and if they refuse be banned from
> > > participating.
>

> > Agreed, this is not about free speech, but about openly observable
> > behaviour.
Agreed. Strike One.
>
> Yes and in addition this disruptive behavior actively impedes the free
> speech rights of serious debaters.
Agreed. Strike Two.
>
> We have threads which have been so disrupted that you can have to go through
> thirty posts to find one which contains debate.
>
> It derails healthy discussion.
>
> As long as the requirements are stringent and all the Mods are required to
> agree I think we can safely avoid situations where people are banned because
> of unpopularity or content like Fossil and serious,
> deliberate disrupters like E_Space can be dealt with effectively.
>
> We are slowly losing good members
Agreed. Strike Three.
Okay, whoever meets these types of criteria are definitely NOT
interested in conversing with others, rather causing others grief and
also intending disruption of the site. This is totally unfair to those
like Sketch System who joined for all the right reasons - oh, and like
me, of course, and you, and you...........

and they are being replaced by more (and
> more malicious) trolls.
>
> I don't think we have any choice but to deal with this situation firmly.
Agreed. Go for it, guys.
>
>
>
> > _______________________________
> > No man who ever lived knows any more about the hereafter ... than you
> > and I; and all religion ... is simply evolved out of chicanery, fear,
> > greed, imagination and poetry.
> > -- Edgar Allan Poe

[Trance Gemini]

Thanks Philosophy. I appreciate your support.

[Multiverse]

On May 8, 1:52 pm, BlueSci <enzinab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 6:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to pose this question to the Mod Team and Owners for an
> > Opinion and would appreciate it if everyone weighed in.
>
> > When someone openly states that their sole purpose for being on AvC is
> > to disrupt the group should we be ignoring this or should we be asking
> > them to leave and banning them if they continue to disrupt?
>
> I'm just as sick and tired of all the sniping and bickering that has
> been going on lately as anyone, but I'll just reiterate what I and
> others have said:  Don't want trolls disrupting the group?  QUIT
> FEEDING THEM!  These people wouldn't be able to disrupt the group if
> others didn't engage them.  I think that people who continually engage
> trolls must get some enjoyment out of it or they would quit doing it.
> Either that or they can't control themselves for some reason, but
> that's their problem not mine.

Good point but can add that it is actually unfair to characterize
people responding to them as people somehow not able to control some
strange behavior of their own. I just want to point out that part of
Trance's argument is that the "trolls's" don't engage in "debate".
Someone can rightfully ONLY accuse someone of NOT engaging in debate
after they have attempted to engage the person in debate.

One purpose of this forum and perhaps the main focus (although I
completely disagree that it is the only purpose) is to debate. Since
this is only done by attempting to engage other's in discussion, and
the only process available for that is to respond to posts, I see no
reason to look down on anyone attempting to do the same thing WE ARE
ALL HERE TO DO.

The typical e space approach here that I have observed is the "bait
and switch". He generates something that someone feels response
worthy and then just offers nothing but abuse to those who respond
until he needs to lay out more bait.

> > What affect would this have on Free Speech in your opinion?
>
> The more limits we put on speech, the less free it is.  I think that
> if people enjoy feeding the trolls, then they ought to be free to do
> that.  I think it's pretty stupid, but I'm not here to keep people
> from doing stupid things.

I completely agree except I would argue against the characterization
of people responding to other's posts.

>
>
>
> > In my opinion, someone who admits or shows by their actions that they
> > have no intention or interest in debating on AvC which is a debating
> > forum should be asked to leave and if they refuse be banned from
> > participating.
>
> > This is not a comment on the content of their posts but on their
> > behavior and actions.
>
> I'm not here to regulate adults' behavior.  I expect adults to control
> their own behavior.  What I find ironic is that it seems to be the
> troll feeders that are doing the most complaining about them.  If I
> were to see people refrain from responding or start seeing a lot of
> complaints from those who didn't engage the trolls, then I might take
> the complaints more seriously.  I don't want to see this group ruined
> by trolls either, but if people insist on engaging them, they have
> only themselves to blame

You definitely nailed this one down and I differ only in that those
people who are complaining are not thin skinned novices. The
complaints really are valid. Banning them would be the right thing to
do. However any policy designed to allow for this here would change
the group in a way that NOBODY WANTS so absent the bastards jumping
into a currently bannable offence, IGNORE IS ALL THERE IS.

>
> It seems to me that what you're really advocating is not limiting the
> speech of trolls but suggesting that we remove temptation from those
> who are unable to control themselves.  I want this to be a group where
> the majority of people are mature adults that can regulate their own
> behavior.  If it turns into a group where we have to protect people
> from themselves, then I'd rather not be a part of it.

Well, as I said, I don't quite agree with this assessment of the non
troll actions.

> > else...thanks for the suggestion though ;-^)- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

Honestly I give up.

Banning trolls is the only solution and if people won't do that I don't see a good future for this group given the large number of trolls who here who are *very* disruptive.

I really hope I'm wrong but realistically it's progressively getting worse so I don't see how I can be.

When the original rules were created we had 1 person who was an obvious Troll, Keith. And some other border-line ones who were not a major problem.

Now we have:

XNun/Thetard/Michele/Galucust9, 

E_Space, 

Maggie/29Fan, 

Liam has numerous sock puppets here, 

the Muslim trolls, 

and there are probably a few more that are active from time to time.

Things have changed and in my opinion we need to accommodate the changes.

[BlueSci]

On May 8, 11:24 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Because even if spammers never got a single bite from our group they'd
still keep coming. Trolls that get no responses tend to give up and
go away. But as I said, I'd be willing to consider banning a troll
that persisted when no one is responding.

In a way, I do feel the same way about spammers as I do about trolls.
If no one would would buy what the spammers are selling, then the
spammers would give up. It's the fault of the buyers that spammers
exist.

[Trance Gemini]

Then according to your logic we shouldn't ban the spammers either.

Just leave them alone.

I think you know quite well what would happen to this group fairly quickly if we stopped banning the spammers.

[BlueSci]

On May 8, 1:03 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> On May 8, 1:52 pm, BlueSci <enzinab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 6:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'd like to pose this question to the Mod Team and Owners for an
> > > Opinion and would appreciate it if everyone weighed in.
>
> > > When someone openly states that their sole purpose for being on AvC is
> > > to disrupt the group should we be ignoring this or should we be asking
> > > them to leave and banning them if they continue to disrupt?
>
> > I'm just as sick and tired of all the sniping and bickering that has
> > been going on lately as anyone, but I'll just reiterate what I and
> > others have said:  Don't want trolls disrupting the group?  QUIT
> > FEEDING THEM!  These people wouldn't be able to disrupt the group if
> > others didn't engage them.  I think that people who continually engage
> > trolls must get some enjoyment out of it or they would quit doing it.
> > Either that or they can't control themselves for some reason, but
> > that's their problem not mine.
>
> Good point but can add that it is actually unfair to characterize
> people responding to them as people somehow not able to control some
> strange behavior of their own.  I just want to point out that part of
> Trance's argument is that the "trolls's" don't engage in "debate".
> Someone can rightfully ONLY accuse someone of NOT engaging in debate
> after they have attempted to engage the person in debate.

I agree that you can't always tell a troll from their first posts.
However, once it has become clear that they are, then one should quit
responding to them. People have been responding to e_space for 2
months now, to xnun for almost 6 and manny and 29fan even longer. It
sure looks to me like some people are having trouble ignoring them.

>
> One purpose of this forum and perhaps the main focus (although I
> completely disagree that it is the only purpose) is to debate.  Since
> this is only done by attempting to engage other's in discussion, and
> the only process available for that is to respond to posts, I see no
> reason to look down on anyone attempting to do the same thing WE ARE
> ALL HERE TO DO.

The beauty of a forum like this is that we only have to respond to the
posters we choose to. Some people choose to bicker with trolls. I
figure if that is what you've chosen to do, then you shouldn't
complain about the consequences of that choice.

>
> The typical e space approach here that I have observed is the "bait
> and switch".  He generates something that someone feels response
> worthy and then just offers nothing but abuse to those who respond
> until he needs to lay out more bait.

So quit reading his posts. Problem solved.

I'd take the complaints more seriously if there weren't so many people
engaging the trolls. I'd just really like to see the majority of
people ignore the trolls first and if it's still a problem after that,
then I'll consider making changes to the rules.

>
>
>
> > It seems to me that what you're really advocating is not limiting the
> > speech of trolls but suggesting that we remove temptation from those
> > who are unable to control themselves.  I want this to be a group where
> > the majority of people are mature adults that can regulate their own
> > behavior.  If it turns into a group where we have to protect people
> > from themselves, then I'd rather not be a part of it.
>
> Well, as I said, I don't quite agree with this assessment of the non
> troll actions.

Then tell me why people keep responding to the trolls over and over
and over and..., then come here saying they want the troll banned?

[BlueSci]

On May 8, 4:52 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

The difference with spammers is that they won't go away if we ignore
them. Trolls will.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Trance Gemini]

And you know this how?

[Observer]

Observer
I have no use for E space and have just posted notice that I will no
longer read his posts.
Off with his head.

Psychonomist

[e_space]

im sure if the moderators group analyzed my comments, such as 'i dont
want to debate' you would see that it refers to a specific topic that
i felt had no chance for resolution...i have posted many comments,
some of them rather lengthy...within seconds they are being bombarded
by atheists that want to call me every name in the book presumably
because i have a different opinion than them.

please take some time and review any post ive made and analyze it in
reference it to the previous comment. u will come to the conclusion
that i am not very harmfull and in fact, only return abuse to abusers
in the hope that they will see how they are treating others and
possibly change their attitude. yes...im a brat, but NEVER pick on
anybody who isnt bullying someone else.

trance, you consider my comments harmful to the room, yet you laugh
and congratulate observer in regards to his posts. in my opinion this
indicates that you are obviously looking at things from a slanted
viewpoint. as far as i am concerned your recent mulitiple deletion of
my posts could be considered biased censorship. there was absolutely
nothing in them that could not be found elsewhere coming from your
side.

for the record, when stonethatbleeds posted a discussion and asked for
leon to be banned for making a death threat, i simply stated that the
threat had to come from a theist because, according to trance and a
few others, atheists arent abusive. i find this remarkable! my comment
was deleted by trance and the discussion shut down. in the meantime, a
theist supposedly made a similar threat earlier in the week and it was
denounced over and over again for about a week with a high percentage
of the comments coming from the one that removed my comments on the
same issue.

i initiated three more discussions about the subject, all removed by
trance without warning or a stated reason for doing so. i have briefly
looked at moderator rules and find nothing that i have done that
crosses the line. although i am not offended by trance's militant
misuse of her moderator status, i truly think she should be removed
because her activity is unfounded and definately unfair. i trust that
this group will consider this activity and take the appropriate
action...

On May 7, 6:42 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:27 PM, kenandkids <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > what did i say that was extremist?
>
> KK said:
> "at least by hijacking or redirecting their crappy posts we keep dialogue
> moving, i mean look at some of those long ones; are they still the same
> topic as started?"
>
> Trance:
> You are advocating hijacking threads to deal with trolls. I view that as an
> extreme approach which is not constructive.
> You have proposed this kind of thing several times now and when I object you
> claim that I'm objecting to something else.
>
> For example, (and I can find the link if you want) You suggested that I
> share tech information about members so that some members could then stalk
> and bully posters like E_Space. Now I agree that E_Space is an ugly troll
> but I don't agree with resorting to that sort of behavior to deal with these
> issues.
>
> I think you need to give some thought about some of these things that you're
> proposing.
>
> Frankly you could end up in a lot of trouble talking the way that you do on
> news groups so my suggestions here are an effort to be helpful to you.
>
>
>
>
>
> > in the exact thread that i said
> > almost the exact words you just used, i had no suggestion other than
> > someone talk to him privately to get him to actually contribute!
> > as for the following post, i was saying that - in sites that ONLY
> > ignore- the slogging through posts is tiresome.  when someone posts
> > something ridiculous they are often left behind as the topic changes
> > and people actually begin responding to others. i'm seriously
> > wondering what i've suggested that is outrageous or extreme.
> > the one point that i've ever supported a ban is ed conrad, and i stand
> > by it.
>
> > On May 7, 3:07 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:40 PM, kenandkids <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > We have threads which have been so disrupted that you can have to go
> > > > through
> > > > > thirty posts to find one which contains debate.
>

> > > > hey! when i said this awhile back, you weren't very pleased with me
> > > > =-/
>
> > > It's your suggestions I don't agree with some of which have been quite
> > > outrageous and extremist in nature in my opinion.
>
> > > Follows is your post:
> > > not to mention, the sites that ignore only generally have 10-30 ed/
> > > fossil/xnun quote/i hate gay/repubs are evil/etc. posts by a small
> > > group of individuals every day. i can tell you from experience that
> > > slogging through that many bullshit posts just to try and find someone
> > > to respond to really sucks.
>
> > > at least by hijacking or redirecting their
> > > crappy posts we keep dialogue moving, i mean look at some of those
> > > long ones; are they still the same topic as started?
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­-----------
> > > Follows is my response objecting to your suggestion that we "hijack
> > threads"
> > > not to your statement regarding 10-30 posts:
> > > IMO they should be ignored or banned.
>
> > > Hijacking the threads gives them exactly what they want, encourages them
> > to
> > > stay, and blocks dialog by increasing the number of craps posts we have
> > to
> > > go through.
>
> > > So I don't agree that's a constructive approach.

>
> > > > On May 7, 10:36 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>

> > > > > > On May 7, 9:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I'd like to pose this question to the Mod Team and Owners for an
> > > > > > > Opinion and would appreciate it if everyone weighed in.
>
> > > > > > > When someone openly states that their sole purpose for being on
> > AvC
> > > > is
> > > > > > > to disrupt the group should we be ignoring this or should we be
> > > > asking
> > > > > > > them to leave and banning them if they continue to disrupt?
>

> > > > > > Totally agree.
> > > > > > If someone states thay they are not interested in debating, for
> > > > > > whatver reason, then sayonara...
>
> > > > > > Others do not state it openly but almost do, like manny, xnun or
> > > > > > maggie for instance.
> > > > > > They have not claimed, like e_space did, "I do not want to debate."
> > > > > > but have frequently stated "Debating is useless... what is the
> > > > > > point... get a life..." etc.
> > > > > > And then the never participate in any discussion in any meaningful
> > > > > > way.
> > > > > > They should also be booted out.
>
> > > > > > When soneone joins and behaves like that, we all attempt to show
> > them
> > > > > > how unreasonable they are, if they persists with their
> > > > > > unreasonableness, why keep them around and have them clutter the
> > > > > > threads with their nonsense?
>

> > > > > > > What affect would this have on Free Speech in your opinion?
>
> > > > > > > In my opinion, someone who admits or shows by their actions that
> > they
> > > > > > > have no intention or interest in debating on AvC which is a
> > debating
> > > > > > > forum should be asked to leave and if they refuse be banned from
> > > > > > > participating.
>

> > > > > > Agreed, this is not about free speech, but about openly observable
> > > > > > behaviour.
>

> > > > > Yes and in addition this disruptive behavior actively impedes the
> > free
> > > > > speech rights of serious debaters.
>

> > > > > We have threads which have been so disrupted that you can have to go
> > > > through
> > > > > thirty posts to find one which contains debate.
>
> > > > > It derails healthy discussion.
>
> > > > > As long as the requirements are stringent and all the Mods are
> > required
> > > > to
> > > > > agree I think we can safely avoid situations where people are banned
> > > > because
> > > > > of unpopularity or content like Fossil and serious,
> > > > > deliberate disrupters like E_Space can be dealt with effectively.
>

> > > > > We are slowly losing good members and they are being replaced by more

> > > > (and
> > > > > more malicious) trolls.
>
> > > > > I don't think we have any choice but to deal with this situation
> > firmly.
>

> > > > > > _______________________________
> > > > > > No man who ever lived knows any more about the hereafter ... than
> > you
> > > > > > and I; and all religion ... is simply evolved out of chicanery,
> > fear,
> > > > > > greed, imagination and poetry.
> > > > > > -- Edgar Allan Poe
>

> > > > > --
> > > > > “You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it
> > > > turns
> > > > > out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott

> > (paraphrased)-

> > > > Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>

> > > --
> > > “You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it
> > turns

> > > out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)-

> > Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>

> --
> “You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns

> out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

All issues regarding Moderation are to be discussed in the Mod Forum E_Space whether you like or not.

Your original post was in reference to Stoney's complaint and you were asked to bring it here.

Instead you ignored me and continued to disrupt the site.

All told I was forced to request this three times and it wasn't until I threatened to recommend to the Mod team that you be banned that you finally complied.

I forwarded your private email to me to Rapp and OM because I will not deal with Trolls privately.

I have also forwarded everything else to Rapp and OM and most of the Mods will be able to view the history of this activity in their email.

Feel free to continue obfuscating the facts and spreading your pathological lies though.

[Multiverse]

I am just not deciding what peoples motives are or not as to why they
bother with them. I agree it only fuels the trolls, but that's just
the way it goes.

>
> > One purpose of this forum and perhaps the main focus (although I
> > completely disagree that it is the only purpose) is to debate.  Since
> > this is only done by attempting to engage other's in discussion, and
> > the only process available for that is to respond to posts, I see no
> > reason to look down on anyone attempting to do the same thing WE ARE
> > ALL HERE TO DO.
>
> The beauty of a forum like this is that we only have to respond to the
> posters we choose to.  Some people choose to bicker with trolls.  I
> figure if that is what you've chosen to do, then you shouldn't
> complain about the consequences of that choice.

I only agree that you should not bother with them once you have
complained because I don't fault their attempts to flesh out some
discourse.

>
> > The typical e space approach here that I have observed is the "bait
> > and switch".  He generates something that someone feels response
> > worthy and then just offers nothing but abuse to those who respond
> > until he needs to lay out more bait.
>
> So quit reading his posts.  Problem solved.
>

Well, for the record, I don't read his posts or have not been for
quite a while now.

simply ignoring them should do the trick is the prevailing
recommendation.

>
> > > It seems to me that what you're really advocating is not limiting the
> > > speech of trolls but suggesting that we remove temptation from those
> > > who are unable to control themselves.  I want this to be a group where
> > > the majority of people are mature adults that can regulate their own
> > > behavior.  If it turns into a group where we have to protect people
> > > from themselves, then I'd rather not be a part of it.
>
> > Well, as I said, I don't quite agree with this assessment of the non
> > troll actions.
>
> Then tell me why people keep responding to the trolls over and over
> and over and..., then come here saying they want the troll banned?

Well from reading their posts it seems they believe they have tried to
engage them in debate, were unsuccsessful, and would like the person
banned for not responding debate wise.

In case your not clear on my position, I DO NOT they should be banned
based on any evidence presented on this forum in the way of cut and
paste their comments or link to their comments to show some sort of
post content that should be banned. In fact I don't think they should
be banned if they NEVER debate anyone. They can post all the comments
they want to critique what others say here. If the post they are
responding to is not bannable, then their comments are on topic and
relivent to include just about any abuse they can dish out really.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Multiverse]

But that does not mean that a troll cannot spam a group. They
obviously can easily do that. The problem is their is no moderation
method worthy of use to prevent it.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

To distrupt as a verb, as per dictionary.com:

---

1. to cause disorder or turmoil in: The news disrupted their
conference.
2. to destroy, usually temporarily, the normal continuance or unity
of; interrupt: Telephone service was disrupted for hours.
3. to break apart: to disrupt a connection

---

1: Religion in general refers to a bunch of incompatible worldviews,
worldviews that are most united by their opposition to the lack of
religion. You call a group "Atheism vs. Christianity", anything that
doesn't "disrupt" is off-topic.
2: AvC could be said to "disrupt" the "normal continuance" of theism
versus atheism in a broader historical context, because we can speak
out without getting burned to death.
3: The only connection between incompatible worldviews is one of
conflict.

[Dev]

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in
an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room,
with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional
response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."

That's the summary from the Wiki page.

CONTROVERSIAL: The group in question is called "Atheism vs.
Christianity" for fuck's sake. It's _ABOUT_ controversy.
INFLAMMATORY: DItto.
IRRELAVANT: If it isn't controversial or inflammatory, it is
_obviously_ irrelevant on a group called "Atheism vs. Christianity".

I've dealt with "disrupt".

This is dumb. Seriously. How fucked up is it that I have to be the one
defending the free speech rights of theists? _None_ of them have
anything of value to say. That goes with being a theist. This is
censorship for opinion alone, and I don't stand for that. In "rl",
censorship for opinion means you and me die because we're in the
minority.

On May 8, 5:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Let's assume there's a deity who wants xnun to do what she does. Why
> > did said deity make it equally likely that OldMan's deity is real
> > based on His curses of reason and evidence?
>
> > There's no grounds for censoring xnun/e_space/trog or any of its other
> > identities. Sorry. There is no thetard that is offering rationality as
> > a precious gift to this discussion. Just because some thetards pretend
> > to try to be reasonable doesn't change this. A thetard admitting to
> > not trying to participate in a reasonable conversation is just a more
> > self-conscious and frankly honest thetard. I don't think we should ban
> > for honesty.
>
> Here is the definition of Internet Troll.
>
> Both fit that definition to a Tee based on their posts and should be banned
> on that basis and no other.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

> --
> “You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns

> out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

I think you should be kicked out just for the whole no-capital-
letters e.e. cummings wannabe shit.

[Dev]

I really see very little to differentiate you from e_space. But, in
your honor, I will remind everyone that evidence of looking at another
poster's Google Groups profile, even by accident, is clearly a
bannable offense.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[trog69]

I have a much simpler proposal.  Let's see people quit feeding the
trolls first.  If a troll then persists on clogging the group with
posts that no one is responding to, then we ban them.

Please, can we at least try this before any harsher actions?

--
Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.
~ Kurt Vonnegut

[trog69]

If ignoring the trolls doesn't work, your ass is gone, you fucking nutcase.

[Multiverse]

On May 9, 12:52 am, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have a much simpler proposal.  Let's see people quit feeding the
> > trolls first.  If a troll then persists on clogging the group with
> > posts that no one is responding to, then we ban them.
>
> Please, can we at least try this before any harsher actions?

No. Opinions are most welcome here. Opinions on others opinions are
welcome here. opinions that DISAGREE with every single other member
here are welcome.

Trog do you really not have any concept of attempting to ban someone
simply because they are ignored?

Please write out this policy in detail as to how it would be
implemented.

Describe clogging the group in a tangible way, detail how many
unanswered posts it would take, and while your at it throw in an
explanation as to why you think deleting opinions of others that are
on topic does not equal speech moderation.

Everybody on this group posts something that goes unanswered. People
comment all the time on posts that never get answered. People even
word their post as to not solicit a comment.

Now cmon trog, you yourself, are commonly posting sharp tongued fiery
posts that are easily see to be opinionated commentary not designed
for anything more than the response of "fuck you". In fact I hi five
your wit routinely and I appreciate it and yes, I definitely do the
same thing as does virtually everyone.

could you just step back for a second and tell me that you really
don't think this is a CHEAP AND PETTY conversation taking place right
here?

Here it is:

OK EVERYBODY, LETS NOT RESPOND TO ANYTHING THEY SAY, AND WE WILL MAKE
IT ILLEGAL TO NOT BE RESPONDED TO, AND WHEN WE DONT RESPOND, WE CAN
GET RID OF THEM THAT WAY. YEA!!! THAT WILL WORK. (caps here to
emphasize that you've got a hot mic while your saying all this and
it's going out in the clear,...oops)

Of course you won't be back in the huddle when the sockpuppets all
respond to each other will we?

Cmon. DK has has the correct consistent message here. lets everybody
drop this shit and go kick some fucking theist ass!!!!!

> ~ Kurt Vonnegut- Hide quoted text -

[trog69]

Maybe I'm still not awake yet, but I'm unclear on your intent; Are you saying let's just ban them and that's it? As far as the two we've been discussing, I have no problem with that at all. I just think that BS makes a good point that I also agree with, in that we haven't even tried ignoring their crass and pointless posts. We have engaged it constantly, and now find we're tiring of the crap. I don't stand against banning these two, but I think it should remain a case by case, rather than a blanket "troll" ban, basis. I am certainly outraged by the death threat post, and we all know that xnun had a hand in that, so good riddance.

I just am averse to shutting off ANY speech so it's not easy for me.

[trog69]

Trog do you really not have any concept of attempting to ban someone
simply because they are ignored?

Huh?

OK EVERYBODY, LETS NOT RESPOND TO ANYTHING THEY SAY, AND WE WILL MAKE
IT ILLEGAL TO NOT BE RESPONDED TO, AND WHEN WE DONT RESPOND, WE CAN
GET RID OF THEM THAT WAY.  YEA!!! THAT WILL WORK

I've read this three times and I still don't know what the fuck you saying.

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Multiverse <cut...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

[Multiverse]

> Maybe I'm still not awake yet, but I'm unclear on your intent; Are you
> saying let's just ban them and that's it?

Wow. No trog. your not awake yet;) give it a go after ya mainline
some java should work;-)

On May 9, 1:50 am, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe I'm still not awake yet, but I'm unclear on your intent; Are you
> saying let's just ban them and that's it? As far as the two we've been
> discussing, I have no problem with that at all. I just think that BS makes a
> good point that I also agree with, in that we haven't even tried ignoring
> their crass and pointless posts. We have engaged it constantly, and now find
> we're tiring of the crap. I don't stand against banning these two, but I
> think it should remain a case by case, rather than a blanket "troll" ban,
> basis. I am certainly outraged by the death threat post, and we all know
> that xnun had a hand in that, so good riddance.
>
> I just am averse to shutting off ANY speech so it's not easy for me.
>

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Multiverse]

trog go back to my original post. from below it looks as if you have
cut out like half the post that comes after "trog do you really....."
and before all the stuff in caps.

On May 9, 1:55 am, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Trog do you really not have any concept of attempting to ban someone
> simply because they are ignored?
>
> Huh?
>
> OK EVERYBODY, LETS NOT RESPOND TO ANYTHING THEY SAY, AND WE WILL MAKE
> IT ILLEGAL TO NOT BE RESPONDED TO, AND WHEN WE DONT RESPOND, WE CAN
> GET RID OF THEM THAT WAY.  YEA!!! THAT WILL WORK
>
> I've read this three times and I still don't know what the fuck you saying.
>

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[trog69]

I think the problem is you're trying to be a fucking smart ass and be serious at the same time. I've re-read the entire post, and I still haven't a clue wtf you're talking about.

[Multiverse]

On May 9, 2:10 am, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the problem is you're trying to be a fucking smart ass and be
> serious at the same time. I've re-read the entire post, and I still haven't
> a clue wtf you're talking about.

Trog. First off I am not trying to be a smart ass for the purpose of
insulting you or pissing you off. I seriously mean that. I have
posted quite a bit recently, it is late, and perhaps my post at best
is gibberish and fails to accurately relay my thoughts at all.

Perhaps also I have just put to much zest in my comments as that is an
easy tendency and I often intend for it to be there but again it's
late and I should sign out.

I do know I did not desire to piss you personally off even though I
might disagree with certain things. I hope you are familiar enough (I
would think you are) with my "style" to know that I would have no
problem telling you or anyone else if I intended to be such a smart
ass it would piss you off so conversely I hope you understand that
really was not my intent.

I apologize.

I will try to fix after some shut eye.

[trog69]

I know. Hey, you can piss me off all you want, I just wanna know what's meant so I can respond appropriately. ;)

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

To distrupt as a verb, as per dictionary.com:

---

1. to cause disorder or turmoil in: The news disrupted their
conference.
2. to destroy, usually temporarily, the normal continuance or unity
of; interrupt: Telephone service was disrupted for hours.
3. to break apart: to disrupt a connection

---

1: Religion in general refers to a bunch of incompatible worldviews,
worldviews that are most united by their opposition to the lack of
religion. You call a group "Atheism vs. Christianity", anything that
doesn't "disrupt" is off-topic.
2: AvC could be said to "disrupt" the "normal continuance" of theism
versus atheism in a broader historical context, because we can speak
out without getting burned to death.
3: The only connection between incompatible worldviews is one of
conflict.

None of which has any relevance to my point whatsoever.

My point is that this person admits to joining our group in order to "have fun" by "not bothering to debate".

When it is pointed out to them that this is disruptive behavior on a DEBATING Group they are quite happy about that.

It's not rocket science to clue in to the fact that this is a troll.

Since trolls only join groups to disrupt and attempt to destroy those groups it strike me as somewhat idiotic to encourage that behavior by refusing to ban them.

Yes the standard "advice" is to "ignore them and they will go away".

Has anyone actually had experience of that?

I haven't. I have never seen a troll willingly leave any site except when Keith ran away after you became a Mod.

And No-one ignores the Trolls. The trolls know that they can always get One person and they do.

So the suggestion that we should "ignore" them and they will just "go away" is, in my opinion, completely unrealistic and not thought out.

People have determined that it's right because everyone on the Internet says so, so it must be.

One of the really big problems that atheists have on this site is their dogmatism when it comes to certain issues.

It's really just the opposite side of the same coin.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in
an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room,
with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional

response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."

That's the summary from the Wiki page.

CONTROVERSIAL: The group in question is called "Atheism vs.
Christianity" for fuck's sake. It's _ABOUT_ controversy.
INFLAMMATORY: DItto.
IRRELAVANT: If it isn't controversial or inflammatory, it is
_obviously_ irrelevant on a group called "Atheism vs. Christianity".

I've dealt with "disrupt".

No actually you haven't. My response dealt with your irrelevant comments.

 

This is dumb. Seriously. How fucked up is it that I have to be the one
defending the free speech rights of theists? _None_ of them have
anything of value to say. That goes with being a theist. This is
censorship for opinion alone, and I don't stand for that. In "rl",
censorship for opinion means you and me die because we're in the
minority.

Feel free to defend the free speech rights of theists all you want but in my opinion it's sheer stupidity to defend the free speech rights of Trolls and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to identify them.

[e_space]

i was not asked to bring it here...i noted that, after you removed my
comment from stonethatbleeds discussion post, u stated that YOU were
bringing it here and u did not indicate that nobody was allowed to
talk about it in the room, which i do not believe falls into your
right as a moderator unless u have the power to decide what the forum
talks about?

please indicate how i was disrupting the site...did u have one
complaint? if so, please post it here. u did not request anything once
let alone 3 times. if u did, please show me the posts because i did
not see anything about it. if i want to start a new discussion about
this, why should i not be allowed to. u dont want me to gather all the
posts you made about this very type of incident when a threat was made
against an atheist do u? you went on for days and days about it, yet i
cant make one comment when the reverse happens?

not only are u censoring one side of the room, you are calling people
names, as is your propensity. u call me abusive, yet i can gather
reems of your posts where u are calling people names. the worst name i
have called someone is a blanker...yet u call me schizo, a pathetical
liar, and a bunch of other names including troll (as evident within
your response to my previous post). the reason u call me that is that
u think that i come to the forum to disrupt. i came to see what it was
about and within 5 minutes of joining AvC all i saw was name calling
and other forms of abuse, mostly coming from the atheist side. if you
somehow are not aware of this, i could spend a couple of weeks getting
examples for you. i simply started treating abusers as they were
treating others, and that is why all the atheists in AvC hate me...u
simply cant take your own attitude when its thrown back at u

in the last several days i have seen u threaten to ban more than one
person because u dont like what they are saying. one such threat was
because some poor theist posted a link to another forum, and u claimed
he was advertizing another forum rather than to introduce a point, and
if they continued to do so you would ban them, yet many posts are
entered with links to other sites and as long as its an atheist
posting it, no problem. i believe u have posted a few external links
in your time, dont you?

u personally make many posts that are not in the form of debate, but
are basically character bashing repetitions that u somehow cannot get
away from. personally, i dont think a moderator should be in the
business of name-calling whatsoever, no matter what they think. there
should be rules that u have to follow and if u dont like them, dont be
a moderator, just be a regular poster and let your venom flow freely.

if i could think of one incidence where u threatened to kick out an
atheist your censorship wouldnt be so flagrant and noticable
hypocritical. u want to ban me but laff at observers vile posts??? you
have no place as a moderator because u have no tolerance for those who
dont sign on to your slant of atheism. of all the moderators i have
ever come across, you are the most unfair and definately the one who
likes to throw their weight around for all to see...its quite shameful
and it shouldnt take a panel of your peers to remove u, your
conscience should do this for u...

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[e_space]

well walt, i sure hope u arent a moderator. u want to kick out someone
for not using proper english in a forum in the 21st century??? its a
wonder u know how to work a computer with that archaic attitude

[e_space]

re: "None of them have anything of value to say. That goes with being
a theist." ...and you are a moderator??? if you think that NO theist
EVER has anything of value to say, why do you go to the forum? the
answer is simple, to slam every theist that comes along, which you do
quite prolifically. and then you use a nik with the word devil in it,
so in fact u are a theist yourself. you should spend some time
considering what u are and why your main goal in the forum is to bash
those trying to make conversation...if ure are a devil (thedeviliam)
why not go to a Satanism vs Christianity forum and ply your trade
there?

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -