Troll Rule?

[Answer_42]

I read Dev's post on the Tyler situation, and replied as follows:

(For brevity I snipped the most of Dewv,s text.)

--------------------------------------------
> I will now proceed to ban Tyler, or he's just going to keep doing
> this. This discussion is going to be about whether he should be
> unbanned or given another chance. Due to the immediate nature of the
> problem, and warnings from two moderators to Tyler, and the fact that
> he was never an established poster of real content, I do not think I'm
> overstepping my authority by doing this.

Good move.

Now, can someone explain to me the actual difference between what this
guy was doing and what space between the ears is doing?

Blindly saying "thanks" and stupidly throwing insults at all atheists
for no other reason than they are atheists gives the exact same
results, totally predictable and inane posts.
xnun and thetard ar just as useless.

Why is it that whenever we have assholes throwing insults around in a
systematic manner all while totally non contributing to the debate,
they are theists?

We have a rule against spam, we could have one against trolls, no?
-----------------------------------------------

(Note that the penultimate paragraph is not relevant to this
discussion, I just pasted it in order to prevent would-be accusers
from alleging that I was being dishonest in my copy/paste here.)


So, what do you think? Do we need an explicit rule about trolling or
is that too subjective?
If that is the case (too subjective), then, when a troll is
"detected", we could have a vote in this group regarding whether
members believe the alleged troll is in fact a troll?

If the majority agrees that the said poster is in fact a troll, a
warning could be issued to give a chance to the poster to adjust...

Or would this whole exercise be a waste of time?
__________________________________
Christianity is the enemy of liberty and of civilization. It has kept
mankind in chains.
-- August Bebel

[Neil Kelsey]

On Apr 20, 11:33 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I read Dev's post on the Tyler situation, and replied as follows:
>
> (For brevity I snipped the most of Dewv,s text.)
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> > I will now proceed to ban Tyler, or he's just going to keep doing
> > this. This discussion is going to be about whether he should be
> > unbanned or given another chance. Due to the immediate nature of the
> > problem, and warnings from two moderators to Tyler, and the fact that
> > he was never an established poster of real content, I do not think I'm
> > overstepping my authority by doing this.
>
> Good move.
>
> Now, can someone explain to me the actual difference between what this
> guy was doing and what space between the ears is doing?
>
> Blindly saying "thanks" and stupidly throwing insults at all atheists
> for no other reason than they are atheists gives the exact same
> results, totally predictable and inane posts.
> xnun and thetard ar just as useless.
>
> Why is it that whenever we have assholes throwing insults around in a
> systematic manner all while totally non contributing to the debate,
> they are theists?
>
> We have a rule against spam, we could have one against trolls, no?

YES PLEASE

> -----------------------------------------------
>
> (Note that the penultimate paragraph is not relevant to this
> discussion, I just pasted it in order to prevent would-be accusers
> from alleging that I was being dishonest in my copy/paste here.)
>
> So, what do you think? Do we need an explicit rule about trolling or
> is that too subjective?

> If that is the case (too subjective), then, when a troll is
> "detected", we could have a vote in this group regarding whether
> members believe the alleged troll is in fact a troll?

Exactly. A vote by the moderators, split into an equal number of
atheists and theists.

> If the majority agrees that the said poster is in fact a troll, a
> warning could be issued to give a chance to the poster to adjust...
>
> Or would this whole exercise be a waste of time?

NO. ear_space is contributing nothing. AvC isn't a babysitting
service.

[Multiverse]

So some sort of Group member nomination for Ban by vote?

I can think of a bunch of reasons for or against that but having
something like that seems to open up a can of worms that we are not
interested in. Namely censorship.

I don't think I am alone in saying I have people that I usually ignore
and I am sure I've also made others lists. STB comes to mind. But he
is kinda on topic and usually writes more than 1 sentence trite
comments. And every now and then somebody bothers to reply to him.
But pretty much I don't see any value in his posts and anyone who
bothers to engage him soon realizes they would rather watch paint dry
then bother with him again. At least IMO.

So I compare 5 or 6 ear space words to the small paragraph that STB
usually comes up with and I think it's easier to ignore ear space. I
would also point out that ear space posts, while amounting to little
more than insults, are insults that seem to be on topic. I could be
wrong there because I just looked at 1 thread from today.

So I would actually classify his replies more like "meaningless on
topic commentary". But that's meaningless to me, maybe not to
others? Maybe I need to go back and look at his stuff because like I
said I been skipping him for a while.

The whole thing with the idea of a member generated "vote to ban" just
based on someone being non contributory or insulting seems like for
1.) it could have a chilling effect on others contributions. Some
people might really not be capable of anything more than trite
commentary. Xnun is lucky to pull that much off. But through their
time here they might learn a thing or two and eventually do a better
job of commenting, 2.) where do you draw the line, and, what is to
keep someone who is only here to get on peoples nerves from dancing
around close to that line causing lots of people to waste lots of time
exploring whether we could launch them down range or not. Seems
easier to ignore them then to invent a time consuming way that makes
sure that only the truly worthless get dumped.

I have only looked at these perspectives, but at this time, if it's on
topic, I would not support having a motion to ban anyone.

[BlueSci]

On Apr 20, 11:33 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I read Dev's post on the Tyler situation, and replied as follows:
>
> (For brevity I snipped the most of Dewv,s text.)
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> > I will now proceed to ban Tyler, or he's just going to keep doing
> > this. This discussion is going to be about whether he should be
> > unbanned or given another chance. Due to the immediate nature of the
> > problem, and warnings from two moderators to Tyler, and the fact that
> > he was never an established poster of real content, I do not think I'm
> > overstepping my authority by doing this.
>
> Good move.
>
> Now, can someone explain to me the actual difference between what this
> guy was doing and what space between the ears is doing?

I tried to say this on the Tyler thread but it was closed before I
responded. I don't really agree with his banning. Yes, what he was
doing was annoying and didn't contribute to the conversation, but that
has never been grounds for banning before. We once had a guy named
Searcher on the group who just posted a few words that often had
nothing to do with the conversation followed by "But what do I know?
Shalom" and we never banned him. I don't think what Tyler did was
much different.

>
> Blindly saying "thanks" and stupidly throwing insults at all atheists
> for no other reason than they are atheists gives the exact same
> results, totally predictable and inane posts.
> xnun and thetard ar just as useless.

Trog69 never does anything but make amusing jibes that don't really
contribute either. Should he be included in the useless poster
category?

>
> Why is it that whenever we have assholes throwing insults around in a
> systematic manner all while totally non contributing to the debate,
> they are theists?

Not always the case. We had an atheist named Bonfly who never did
anything but throw insults. I'd even say that we have at least 1
atheist who is currently active on the group that doesn't do anything
but insult theists.

>
> We have a rule against spam, we could have one against trolls, no?
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> (Note that the penultimate paragraph is not relevant to this
> discussion, I just pasted it in order to prevent would-be accusers
> from alleging that I was being dishonest in my copy/paste here.)
>
> So, what do you think? Do we need an explicit rule about trolling or
> is that too subjective?
> If that is the case (too subjective), then, when a troll is
> "detected", we could have a vote in this group regarding whether
> members believe the alleged troll is in fact a troll?
>
> If the majority agrees that the said poster is in fact a troll, a
> warning could be issued to give a chance to the poster to adjust...
>
> Or would this whole exercise be a waste of time?

I think it's too subjective. There are some on the group that I think
are trolls that others like and even respect. How do we decide who is
a troll and who is useless? I don't think that voting on it is a good
idea. I can only envision that as constant calls for this person or
that being voted a troll. And there is such a thing as a tyranny of
the majority.

Putting up with posters we find annoying and who we think don't
contribute to the conversation is the price we have to pay for having
an open forum where people are free to say anything they want to. If
we start banning people because we don't think they're contributing,
it will stifle free speech.

I think the best way to deal with trolls is to quit feeding them. As
long as people continue to feed them, I can't help but think that they
must enjoy them. Who am I to take their trolls away?

[OldMan]

I agree. Quit feeding them and they will eventually go away. The
problem is that some people feel obligated to respond to them, thus
encouraging them to hang around.

I do not believe that banning them is generally the solution, although
I would not rule it out entirely.

[trog69]

I can think of a bunch of reasons for or against that but having
something like that seems to open up a can of worms that we are not
interested in.  Namely censorship.

As long as people respond to the asses, the asses will continue to show their...uh, selves. Mea culpa.

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Multiverse <cut...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

So some sort of Group member nomination for Ban by vote?

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

[Dev]

You seem to have never read any discussion we've ever had about a "de
facto" spammer and a "technical" spammer. I asked Tyler if he
understood the nature of the complaints, "yes or no". Brock, trog,
bonfly, SEARCHER, Woodbridge, whoever--they would have given evidence
that they realized they were being asked a question and provided a
response that was in some way contingent. trog seems to be against
logic as much as you are, but he's clearly responding to stuff in
posts. And so are you. We're not talking about a bad poster, we're
talking about somebody who clearly wasn't participating at all.

Tyler seemed to post a bunch of empty posts in response to being
criticized for a few of them, but in a way that is literally
indiscernable from a computer virus. If we didn't take action, the
group would have become unreadable. Trance, in real time, can testify
that we observed that every thread was being eaten up by literally
empty posts. Comparing Tyler to posters that merely suck like you suck
is ignorant.

> > -- August Bebel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Neil Kelsey]

On Apr 20, 6:37 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> So some sort of Group member nomination for Ban by vote?
>
> I can think of a bunch of reasons for or against that but having
> something like that seems to open up a can of worms that we are not
> interested in.  Namely censorship.

You're right, of course, and I agree with you. I just had a lapse
where I felt I was in a day care center, and wanted some adult
company.

[trog69]

You're right, of course, and I agree with you. I just had a lapse
where I felt I was in a day care center, and wanted some adult
company.

Yeah, I wish I could say I've never done that.

Speaking of day care...could someone check Dev's diaper, 'cause it seems to be running over into the thread.

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 20, 6:37 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> So some sort of Group member nomination for Ban by vote?
>
> I can think of a bunch of reasons for or against that but having
> something like that seems to open up a can of worms that we are not
> interested in.  Namely censorship.

[Multiverse]

Yea it was my impression that the Tyler posts were qualified as spam
and thus a little different than the type of posts being discussed
here. Since it was spam, he was removed as a spammer. He could still
come to this forum and ask why and ask to be reinstated etc right? So
actually banning him for spamming seems less harmful then ganging up
with a majority vote which does not seem to allow for appeal.

> > -- August Bebel- Hide quoted text -
>

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

[Multiverse]

On Apr 20, 11:31 pm, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I can think of a bunch of reasons for or against that but having
> > something like that seems to open up a can of worms that we are not
> > interested in.  Namely censorship.
>
> As long as people respond to the asses, the asses will continue to show
> their...uh, selves. Mea culpa.

I think it goes like this: Ear space shows up, gets involved in
protracted conversations and wastes a bunch of my time and it turns
out he's a complete moron not able to actually defend a position even
if he were correct without lying, using straw men etc. He then
turns around and resorts to continuously stalking everyone with trite
meaningless comments because most caught on to him being a waste of
time and only bother to tell him to fuck off. I am pissed I wasted
anytime responding to his posts in the first place but I could care
less after that cause I ignore him, and unless I go back and check to
be sure, I don't even know if he is commenting to me.

> ~ Kurt Vonnegut- Hide quoted text -

[Multiverse]

> We're not talking about a bad poster, we're
> talking about somebody who clearly wasn't participating at all

Yep. Spam is Spam.

[Multiverse]

:)

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

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

You seem to have never read any discussion we've ever had about a "de
facto" spammer and a "technical" spammer. I asked Tyler if he
understood the nature of the complaints, "yes or no". Brock, trog,
bonfly, SEARCHER, Woodbridge, whoever--they would have given evidence
that they realized they were being asked a question and provided a
response that was in some way contingent. trog seems to be against
logic as much as you are, but he's clearly responding to stuff in
posts. And so are you. We're not talking about a bad poster, we're
talking about somebody who clearly wasn't participating at all.

Tyler seemed to post a bunch of empty posts in response to being
criticized for a few of them, but in a way that is literally
indiscernable from a computer virus. If we didn't take action, the
group would have become unreadable. Trance, in real time, can testify
that we observed that every thread was being eaten up by literally
empty posts. Comparing Tyler to posters that merely suck like you suck
is ignorant.

I agree and have said exactly that to BlueSci via private email.
 

--
I want to dance. I want to win. I want that Bingo trophy! --Mrs. Mia Wallace (paraphrased)

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 20, 6:37 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> So some sort of Group member nomination for Ban by vote?
>
> I can think of a bunch of reasons for or against that but having
> something like that seems to open up a can of worms that we are not
> interested in.  Namely censorship.

You're right, of course, and I agree with you. I just had a lapse
where I felt I was in a day care center, and wanted some adult
company.

I know the feeling ;-)
 

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Multiverse <cut...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Yea it was my impression that the Tyler posts were qualified as spam
and thus a little different than the type of posts being discussed
here.  Since it was spam, he was removed as a spammer.  He could still
come to this forum and ask why and ask to be reinstated etc right?  So
actually banning him for spamming seems less harmful then ganging up
with a majority vote which does not seem to allow for appeal.

Yes. He was invited to come here and discuss the matter and a thread was started on it for him.

Actually two. Lol.

Dev and I were doing exactly the same thing.

Dev was seconds ahead of me in starting the thread and banning the guy.

I made the announcement and then discovered Dev had already done the deed. Lol.

[BlueSci]

It's so easy to just ignore the posters that you don't like, so I
never quite understand why people expend the time and effort to read
and respond to them. Then they expend more time and effort to
complain about them. But if that's the way they want to spend their
time and energy that way, I'm not going to stop them.

>
> I do not believe that banning them is generally the solution, although
> I would not rule it out entirely.

There are already numerous groups all over the web that moderate
trolls, insults and/or personal attacks. If people aren't happy with
the level of moderation here, there are many other groups they can go
to. But there are not many groups that allow the free and open forum
that we have here and that is why I chose this group over the many
others I tried. I really don't want to see this become another copy
of the groups that are already out there.

Free speech means allowing speech that you don't like. (But we're
also free to ignore it.)

[BlueSci]

On Apr 21, 4:41 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Yea it was my impression that the Tyler posts were qualified as spam
> and thus a little different than the type of posts being discussed
> here.  Since it was spam, he was removed as a spammer.  

I'm just not as sure as others that it actually fit the definition of
spam. It seems to me that we are expanding the definition of spam to
posts that don't contribute to the debate and I don't think that's a
road I want to go down.

> He could still
> come to this forum and ask why and ask to be reinstated etc right?  So
> actually banning him for spamming seems less harmful then ganging up
> with a majority vote which does not seem to allow for appeal.

I don't think that the banning was a really big deal either which is
why I didn't re-open the thread about it. And yes, he could come here
and state his case if the cares to.

I do agree that voting on trolls is a really, really bad idea. With
the number of whiners we have, it would inevitably turn into nearly
constant calls for a vote for every poster someone doesn't like. I
would most certainly step down as a moderator if that were to happen
because I am not going to be involved with all the banning that would
follow.

[BlueSci]

On Apr 21, 6:21 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > You seem to have never read any discussion we've ever had about a "de
> > facto" spammer and a "technical" spammer. I asked Tyler if he
> > understood the nature of the complaints, "yes or no". Brock, trog,
> > bonfly, SEARCHER, Woodbridge, whoever--they would have given evidence
> > that they realized they were being asked a question and provided a
> > response that was in some way contingent. trog seems to be against
> > logic as much as you are, but he's clearly responding to stuff in
> > posts. And so are you. We're not talking about a bad poster, we're
> > talking about somebody who clearly wasn't participating at all.
>
> > Tyler seemed to post a bunch of empty posts in response to being
> > criticized for a few of them, but in a way that is literally
> > indiscernable from a computer virus. If we didn't take action, the
> > group would have become unreadable. Trance, in real time, can testify
> > that we observed that every thread was being eaten up by literally
> > empty posts. Comparing Tyler to posters that merely suck like you suck
> > is ignorant.
>
> I agree and have said exactly that to BlueSci via private email.

I'm not saying that he was exactly like the other posters I
mentioned. I just don't see how his posts fit the definition of spam
as we've outlined it. It seems to me that we are expanding the
definition to include posters that don't adequately contribute and if
that's the case then the other posters I mentioned would fall under
that definition as well. If you can explain to me how his posts fit
our current definition, I'll happily change my mind, but right now I'm
not seeing it.

[Answer_42]

On Apr 20, 9:37 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> So some sort of Group member nomination for Ban by vote?

Well, if you put it like this, of course this is not what I want.

I mean, a troll is a troll.
Not, well, this poster is stupid, let's get rid of him.

> I can think of a bunch of reasons for or against that but having
> something like that seems to open up a can of worms that we are not
> interested in.  Namely censorship.

It would not be about censorship, but about trolling.
Some trolls are very polite, but they are troll nevertheless.

> I don't think I am alone in saying I have people that I usually ignore
> and I am sure I've also made others lists.  STB comes to mind.  But he
> is kinda on topic and usually writes more than 1 sentence trite
> comments.  And every now and then somebody bothers to reply to him.
> But pretty much I don't see any value in his posts and anyone who
> bothers to engage him soon realizes they would rather watch paint dry
> then bother with him again.  At least IMO.
>
> So I compare 5 or 6 ear space words to the small paragraph that STB
> usually comes up with and I think it's easier to ignore ear space.  I
> would also point out that ear space posts, while amounting to little
> more than insults, are insults that seem to be on topic.  I could be
> wrong there because I just looked at 1 thread from today.
>
> So I would actually classify his replies more like "meaningless on
> topic commentary".  But that's meaningless to me, maybe not to
> others?  Maybe I need to go back and look at his stuff because like I
> said I been skipping him for a while.
>
> The whole thing with the idea of a member generated "vote to ban" just
> based on someone being non contributory

Period.

Some are insulting, but contribute nevertheless.
Some are not insulting, but contribute absolutely nothing.

It is just about contribution, nothing else.

> or insulting seems like for
> 1.) it could have a chilling effect on others contributions.  Some
> people might really not be capable of anything more than trite
> commentary. Xnun is lucky to pull that much off.   But through their
> time here they might learn a thing or two and eventually do a better
> job of commenting, 2.) where do you draw the line, and, what is to
> keep someone who is only here to get on peoples nerves from dancing
> around close to that line causing lots of people to waste lots of time
> exploring whether we could launch them down range or not.  Seems
> easier to ignore them then to invent a time consuming way that makes
> sure that only the truly worthless get dumped.
>
> I have only looked at these perspectives, but at this time, if it's on
> topic, I would not support having a motion to ban anyone.

All I am saying is that we already ban spammers, why not add trolls to
the type of posters that can be banned?

I would agree that the determination of a troll is more subjective
than the determination of a spammer.
If that subjective aspect creates too many problems, then so be it, we
will live with the trolls and try to ignore them as best we can.
__________________________________________
The content of the teaching, as well as the form of social relations,
is set up so as to dig a psychological moat around the believers.
-- Edmund D Cohen

[Answer_42]

On Apr 20, 10:04 pm, BlueSci <enzinab...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > So, what do you think? Do we need an explicit rule about trolling or
> > is that too subjective?
> > If that is the case (too subjective), then, when a troll is
> > "detected", we could have a vote in this group regarding whether
> > members believe the alleged troll is in fact a troll?
>
> > If the majority agrees that the said poster is in fact a troll, a
> > warning could be issued to give a chance to the poster to adjust...
>
> > Or would this whole exercise be a waste of time?
>
> I think it's too subjective.  

Yeah, I was afraid of that aspect..

Ok, never mind.. it would have been nice though...

> There are some on the group that I think
> are trolls that others like and even respect.  How do we decide who is
> a troll and who is useless?  I don't think that voting on it is a good
> idea.  I can only envision that as constant calls for this person or
> that being voted a troll.  And there is such a thing as a tyranny of
> the majority.

True, I can see endless discussions on the various merits a poster
might have or not.

> Putting up with posters we find annoying and who we think don't
> contribute to the conversation is the price we have to pay for having
> an open forum where people are free to say anything they want to.  If
> we start banning people because we don't think they're contributing,
> it will stifle free speech.
>
> I think the best way to deal with trolls is to quit feeding them.  

True.

> As
> long as people continue to feed them, I can't help but think that they
> must enjoy them.  Who am I to take their trolls away?

LOL

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:35 PM, BlueSci <enzin...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 20, 7:11 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 7:04 pm, BlueSci <enzinab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 11:33 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I read Dev's post on the Tyler situation, and replied as follows:
>
> > > (For brevity I snipped the most of Dewv,s text.)
>
> > > --------------------------------------------
>
> > > > I will now proceed to ban Tyler, or he's just going to keep doing
> > > > this. This discussion is going to be about whether he should be
> > > > unbanned or given another chance. Due to the immediate nature of the
> > > > problem, and warnings from two moderators to Tyler, and the fact that
> > > > he was never an established poster of real content, I do not think I'm
> > > > overstepping my authority by doing this.
>
> > > Good move.
>
> > > Now, can someone explain to me the actual difference between what this
> > > guy was doing and what space between the ears is doing?
>
> > I tried to say this on the Tyler thread but it was closed before I
> > responded.  I don't really agree with his banning.  Yes, what he was
> > doing was annoying and didn't contribute to the conversation, but that
> > has never been grounds for banning before.  We once had a guy named
> > Searcher on the group who just posted a few words that often had
> > nothing to do with the conversation followed by "But what do I know?
> > Shalom" and we never banned him.  I don't think what Tyler did was
> > much different.

The problem wasn't the content of his contribution BlueSci.

Empty posts, in my opinion, constitute Spam and that's what we were dealing with.

Numerous empty posts.
 

There was no speech, ergo, spam.
 

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:36 PM, BlueSci <enzin...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 21, 4:41 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Yea it was my impression that the Tyler posts were qualified as spam
> and thus a little different than the type of posts being discussed
> here.  Since it was spam, he was removed as a spammer.  

I'm just not as sure as others that it actually fit the definition of
spam.  It seems to me that we are expanding the definition of spam to
posts that don't contribute to the debate and I don't think that's a
road I want to go down.

And what if there is absolutely no content.

This is the point.

He posted blank posts which displayed only his Sig.

I can't think of a better definition of spam. No content whatsoever.
 

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:59 PM, BlueSci <enzin...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 21, 6:21 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > You seem to have never read any discussion we've ever had about a "de
> > facto" spammer and a "technical" spammer. I asked Tyler if he
> > understood the nature of the complaints, "yes or no". Brock, trog,
> > bonfly, SEARCHER, Woodbridge, whoever--they would have given evidence
> > that they realized they were being asked a question and provided a
> > response that was in some way contingent. trog seems to be against
> > logic as much as you are, but he's clearly responding to stuff in
> > posts. And so are you. We're not talking about a bad poster, we're
> > talking about somebody who clearly wasn't participating at all.
>
> > Tyler seemed to post a bunch of empty posts in response to being
> > criticized for a few of them, but in a way that is literally
> > indiscernable from a computer virus. If we didn't take action, the
> > group would have become unreadable. Trance, in real time, can testify
> > that we observed that every thread was being eaten up by literally
> > empty posts. Comparing Tyler to posters that merely suck like you suck
> > is ignorant.
>
> I agree and have said exactly that to BlueSci via private email.

I'm not saying that he was exactly like the other posters I
mentioned.  I just don't see how his posts fit the definition of spam
as we've outlined it.

He posted numerous blank posts with nothing but his Sig file attached.

There was no content whatsoever in the majority of them.

The post he posted advertising his google groups was clearly Spam.

Those two things combined place no doubt in my mind that he clearly fit the definition of a spammer.

All of the others are borderline and that's why we don't ban them.

 

 It seems to me that we are expanding the
definition

How? There was no contribution whatsoever or any content to judge. Just numerous empty posts and one post that clearly fits the definition of spam.
 

to include posters that don't adequately contribute and if
that's the case then the other posters I mentioned would fall under
that definition as well.

No they don't because they post content. Bullshit content and abusive, ugly, inflammatory content but content nonetheless.
 

[Walt]

I may be remembering wrong, but do Tyler's posts have URI(s) in them?
Posts like this could be disguised form of spam, with the real purpose
to get people to follow a link.

Maybe this is your chance to be a modern-day Moses, and lead an exodus
to Yahoo Message Boards, which allows each user to create a list of
ignored users. A user does not see any post from another user who is
on their ignore list.

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I may be remembering wrong, but do Tyler's posts have URI(s) in them?
Posts like this could be disguised form of spam, with the real purpose
to get people to follow a link.

Maybe this is your chance to be a modern-day Moses, and lead an exodus
to Yahoo Message Boards, which allows each user to create a list of
ignored users.  A user does not see any post from another user who is
on their ignore list.

That is also easily done in one's email if members receive their posts by email.
 

[OldMan]

On Apr 21, 10:27 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I may be remembering wrong, but do Tyler's posts have URI(s) in them?
> Posts like this could be disguised form of spam, with the real purpose
> to get people to follow a link.
>
> Maybe this is your chance to be a modern-day Moses, and lead an exodus
> to Yahoo Message Boards, which allows each user to create a list of
> ignored users.  A user does not see any post from another user who is
> on their ignore list.

I believe FoxFire has a kill filter that you can use with
GoogleGroups. Last I checked though there was not one for IE.

> > I would not rule it out entirely.- Hide quoted text -

[kenandkids]

if a person repeatedly posts with nothing but a website address, it's
spam right?
if a person repeatedly posts with nothing but an advert, it's spam
right?
well tyler repeatedly posted with nothing but a signature.

when asked to stop, he posted with only a signature. when warned to
stop, he posted only a signature. when told he would be banned, he
posted with only a signature.

> > (paraphrased)- Hide quoted text -

[Multiverse]

On Apr 21, 1:12 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 9:37 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > So some sort of Group member nomination for Ban by vote?
>
> Well, if you put it like this, of course this is not what I want.
>
> I mean, a troll is a troll.
> Not, well, this poster is stupid, let's get rid of him.

Well yes I did also mean that the nominee would have to fit some sort
of category allowing for the nomination. I just was not going into
detail, thus, "some sort of".

But yes something in the way of qualifying someone as a troll is what
I thought you were after which, in principle I would agree sounds like
a good idea. I mean really, nobody wants trolls around. But since we
can't just have open season with no bag limits or anything, means we
would need to invent the process and therein lies the problem.

>
> > I can think of a bunch of reasons for or against that but having
> > something like that seems to open up a can of worms that we are not
> > interested in.  Namely censorship.
>
> It would not be about censorship, but about trolling.
> Some trolls are very polite, but they are troll nevertheless.

Well, censoring trolls right? Based on what they say? Which is
different then the spamming issue. They can only be id'd as a troll
based on what they say right? Unless I am missing some technical
definition of a troll.

>
>
>
>
>
> > I don't think I am alone in saying I have people that I usually ignore
> > and I am sure I've also made others lists.  STB comes to mind.  But he
> > is kinda on topic and usually writes more than 1 sentence trite
> > comments.  And every now and then somebody bothers to reply to him.
> > But pretty much I don't see any value in his posts and anyone who
> > bothers to engage him soon realizes they would rather watch paint dry
> > then bother with him again.  At least IMO.
>
> > So I compare 5 or 6 ear space words to the small paragraph that STB
> > usually comes up with and I think it's easier to ignore ear space.  I
> > would also point out that ear space posts, while amounting to little
> > more than insults, are insults that seem to be on topic.  I could be
> > wrong there because I just looked at 1 thread from today.
>
> > So I would actually classify his replies more like "meaningless on
> > topic commentary".  But that's meaningless to me, maybe not to
> > others?  Maybe I need to go back and look at his stuff because like I
> > said I been skipping him for a while.
>
> > The whole thing with the idea of a member generated "vote to ban" just
> > based on someone being non contributory
>
> Period.
>
> Some are insulting, but contribute nevertheless.
> Some are not insulting, but contribute absolutely nothing.
>
> It is just about contribution, nothing else.

I can also argue however that someone can find the insults directed by
someone, to someone else, in response to what that someone else
stated, to be a good contribution. I have probably told people "fuck
off" in response to what they said. Now they should have felt
insulted and although my intended contribution to that portion of the
discussion was to insult the person based on the percieved insult I
had recieved or just frustration the person is a moron, reject that
person's statement's, and end the conversation (lotta mileage for two
simple words huh!); I realise that intent could have been lost on
that person and not adequately understood by anyone else. But
somebody could understand and I certainly had a clear definitional
purpose for the choice of words.

I am just saying that measuring that contribution or even definning a
standard presents to many problems and would not leave us with the
free speech forum we now enjoy.

>
> > or insulting seems like for
> > 1.) it could have a chilling effect on others contributions.  Some
> > people might really not be capable of anything more than trite
> > commentary. Xnun is lucky to pull that much off.   But through their
> > time here they might learn a thing or two and eventually do a better
> > job of commenting, 2.) where do you draw the line, and, what is to
> > keep someone who is only here to get on peoples nerves from dancing
> > around close to that line causing lots of people to waste lots of time
> > exploring whether we could launch them down range or not.  Seems
> > easier to ignore them then to invent a time consuming way that makes
> > sure that only the truly worthless get dumped.
>
> > I have only looked at these perspectives, but at this time, if it's on
> > topic, I would not support having a motion to ban anyone.
>
> All I am saying is that we already ban spammers, why not add trolls to
> the type of posters that can be banned?

>
> I would agree that the determination of a troll is more subjective
> than the determination of a spammer.
> If that subjective aspect creates too many problems, then so be it, we
> will live with the trolls and try to ignore them as best we can.

The subjectivity does seem to be the issue

> __________________________________________
> The content of the teaching, as well as the form of social relations,
> is set up so as to dig a psychological moat around the believers.

> -- Edmund D Cohen- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

Here's my problem with equating spammers and troll vis a vis creating
a rule to ban them:

Spammers pollute this site regardless of the response or attention
directed at them.
Trolls pollute this site in direct relation (and proportion) to the
response and attention directed at them.

Banning should be a "last resort only" action.

Since trolls can be eliminated by ignoring them, I don't see the need
for having moderators act upon what is undoubtedly a highly subjective
and controversial topic.

Now, this is easier said than done, but it is far easier than getting
an agreeable definition on who, specific, is and is not at troll.
Typically you will find (for better or for worse) theists and atheists
defending people within their own camp. If you leave it to simply
majority rule then atheists will no doubt get their say in the matter
(for better or for worse).

Yes, I am guilty of feeding the trolls but I do, indeed, feed them
which, due to the nature of trolls, makes me (and everyone else that
feeds them) culpable for their behavior.

Asking the moderators to ban them is tantamount to saying, "This
person is a troll, but I can't stop myself from being baited into
responding them, so I want you to just get rid of them"

Dealing with trolls effectively calls for reform on the part of the
participants of the board. If a group of people agree that someone is
a troll, then they should agree to not have any participation in posts
to, from, or about that person.

On Apr 20, 2:33 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I read Dev's post on the Tyler situation, and replied as follows:
>
> (For brevity I snipped the most of Dewv,s text.)
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> > I will now proceed to ban Tyler, or he's just going to keep doing
> > this. This discussion is going to be about whether he should be
> > unbanned or given another chance. Due to the immediate nature of the
> > problem, and warnings from two moderators to Tyler, and the fact that
> > he was never an established poster of real content, I do not think I'm
> > overstepping my authority by doing this.
>
> Good move.
>
> Now, can someone explain to me the actual difference between what this
> guy was doing and what space between the ears is doing?
>

> Blindly saying "thanks" and stupidly throwing insults at all atheists
> for no other reason than they are atheists gives the exact same
> results, totally predictable and inane posts.
> xnun and thetard ar just as useless.
>

> Why is it that whenever we have assholes throwing insults around in a
> systematic manner all while totally non contributing to the debate,
> they are theists?
>

> We have a rule against spam, we could have one against trolls, no?
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> (Note that the penultimate paragraph is not relevant to this
> discussion, I just pasted it in order to prevent would-be accusers
> from alleging that I was being dishonest in my copy/paste here.)
>
> So, what do you think? Do we need an explicit rule about trolling or
> is that too subjective?
> If that is the case (too subjective), then, when a troll is
> "detected", we could have a vote in this group regarding whether
> members believe the alleged troll is in fact a troll?
>
> If the majority agrees that the said poster is in fact a troll, a
> warning could be issued to give a chance to the poster to adjust...
>
> Or would this whole exercise be a waste of time?

[Dev]

If a person _tries_ to post _one_ Nike ad, they don't even make it
through. The mods know what I'm talking about here (except Brock, who
I don't think actually does shit as a mod, which is why he might as
well stay).

This was more disruptive than our worst serial spammers. And as I
explained in my banning him: _if_ he was actually reading posts, he
was deliberately giving the impression he didn't. Maybe the guy with
the Nigerian Nike ads actually has some really good points to make and
is trying to sneak in under the cover of spam, who knows? BlueSci is a
mentally retarded middle child who has admitted she would rather be
"nice" than logical, even when being "nice" means attacking someone
for being logical, which exposes her as neither nice nor reasonable
but just another moderator like Brock whose best contribution is not
doing shit and she probably only shows up in her capacity as a mod to
be a bitch anyway. Trance and I were both online, it could have turned
into a huge fucking problem if we weren't.

Not helping, stupid, and frankly I enjoy these moderation arguments
more than the usual ones because they're more current. Fuck stupid
people. Fuck them, fuck conceding to them, they should die. Relatively
intelligent people are being stupid by pandering to them when they're
never going to be reasonable.

[BlueSci]

On Apr 21, 10:21 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

It seems this may be a matter of perception. I was taking the
"Thanks" as his comment and not part of his sig. That's why it seemed
to me that he was banned because the comments he was making weren't
contributing. If it was simply his sig, then I guess a case could be
made that they were spam.

[BlueSci]

Well said Dman!

[Dev]

Which is exactly why you shouldn't have protested off the skin off
your ass since you clearly didn't even take the time to read the posts
in question.

[Lawrey]

Trance,

Reviewing the pro's and con's of the various arguments with regard
to trolls, I have not convinced myself that there is a satisfactory
diciplinary action available to the moderators as a body, without
resort
to a general group opinion and without it being seen as censorship.

As a hard atheist with little tolerance of theism, I must be seen to
be
squeeky clean when it comes to the question of banning and the
reasons for so-doing and my bias must not be seen to influence
any decision made. Thus my inference to a group decision on the
matter as a safe option.

Personally while I sympathise with the comments D/Man makes,
I do sometimes bridle at the extent to which we seem to continue to
feed; particularly the bible thumpers and get involved in endless
fultile discussions which serve no purpose save to allow them to
proselytise.

Almost everyone is guilty of this myself included on occasions,
though I have made a special effort of late to ignore the urge.

There being no such thing as god/s why bother giving them any
recognition by arguing over them save to deny them and
demonstrate their origins in the imaginations and machinations of
men of grey cloth.

I am of the the opinion that if enough members ignore them they
will, eventually desist.

On Apr 21, 2:27 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> (paraphrased)- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

Hey Lawrey.

I agree that the trolls are best ignored.

The situation regarding Tyler was different since he was a Spammer and filling the site with numerous blank posts containing only his Sig File.

That's why he was banned.
 

[DoctorWinslow]

On Apr 20, 1:33 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I read Dev's post on the Tyler situation, and replied as follows:

"Troll Rule?" What an obtuse concept!

> (For brevity I snipped the most of Dewv,s text.)
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> > I will now proceed to ban Tyler, or he's just going to keep doing
> > this. This discussion is going to be about whether he should be
> > unbanned or given another chance. Due to the immediate nature of the
> > problem, and warnings from two moderators to Tyler, and the fact that
> > he was never an established poster of real content, I do not think I'm
> > overstepping my authority by doing this.
>
> Good move.
>
> Now, can someone explain to me the actual difference between what this
> guy was doing and what space between the ears is doing?
>

> Blindly saying "thanks" and stupidly throwing insults at all atheists
> for no other reason than they are atheists gives the exact same
> results, totally predictable and inane posts.
> xnun and thetard ar just as useless.
>

> Why is it that whenever we have assholes throwing insults around in a
> systematic manner all while totally non contributing to the debate,
> they are theists?
>

> We have a rule against spam, we could have one against trolls, no?
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> (Note that the penultimate paragraph is not relevant to this
> discussion, I just pasted it in order to prevent would-be accusers
> from alleging that I was being dishonest in my copy/paste here.)
>
> So, what do you think? Do we need an explicit rule about trolling or
> is that too subjective?
> If that is the case (too subjective), then, when a troll is
> "detected", we could have a vote in this group regarding whether
> members believe the alleged troll is in fact a troll?
>
> If the majority agrees that the said poster is in fact a troll, a
> warning could be issued to give a chance to the poster to adjust...
>
> Or would this whole exercise be a waste of time?

[Answer_42]

On Apr 23, 8:13 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I am of the the opinion that if enough members ignore them they
> > will, eventually desist.
>
> Hey Lawrey.
>
> I agree that the trolls are best ignored.

OK, I have read all the arguments and opinions, and I must admit that
this is what I feared would happen, i.e., trolldom is too subjective a
thing to have a rule about.

Unlike some, like Brock, I do not need to flog a dead horse just
because it suits my understanding of some imaginary rule or because I
can't read for shit...

So, I am satisfied that indeed, there is noting we can do (besides
ignoring them). So you can consider this case closed and do the same
with the thread.
_________________________________
No sign of purpose can be detected in any part of the vast universe
disclosed by our most powerful telescopes.
-- Hugh Elliot

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Answer_42 <ipu.be...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 23, 8:13 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I am of the the opinion that if enough members ignore them they
> > will, eventually desist.
>
> Hey Lawrey.
>
> I agree that the trolls are best ignored.

OK, I have read all the arguments and opinions, and I must admit that
this is what I feared would happen, i.e., trolldom is too subjective a
thing to have a rule about.

Unlike some, like Brock, I do not need to flog a dead horse just
because it suits my understanding of some imaginary rule or because I
can't read for shit...

So, I am satisfied that indeed, there is noting we can do (besides
ignoring them). So you can consider this case closed and do the same
with the thread.

Okay A42. This thread is now Closed.
 

_________________________________
No sign of purpose can be detected in any part of the vast universe
disclosed by our most powerful telescopes.
-- Hugh Elliot

[Trance Gemini]

On Apr 23, 4:12 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote: