A&A Feedback

robindch

Mod:

Ladies and gents -

There have been a number of complaints regarding Absolam's posting style, specifically, that over the longer term, it's indistinguishable from trolling.

While this is a hard call to make, your friendly mods have decided to take action on this by requesting Absolam to restrict his/her posts to the abortion thread here while a longer term solution is found. Ideally, this solution will involve Absolam returning his/her posts to the standard of which he/she is well capable.

If that's not done, then we'll be in touch again shortly with a long-term decision.

Thanking youze.

robindch

Ooops, a little birdie reminded me this morning that in previous cases where posters have been asked to restrict themselves to a single thread, that thread has been the creationism thread which lives here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056883606

Seems fairest to stick with existing precedent, so all of Absolam's posts and responses from anybody who wants to discuss with him/her, can can continue to do so there.

robindch

Following a non-binding three month break, the extended mod team has decided to allow Absolam to post again in A+A.

Please note that any repetition of the posting style which lead to his/her departure - notably, arguing the words and sentences while generally ignoring the actual topic of the discussion - will be dealt with promptly by your friendly moderators - firstly, by an inthread note, then a card, then bans of increasing length.

robindch

FA Hayek wrote: »

Fake news at its finest [...]

FA Hayek wrote: »

So, what should we do with people that are unreasonable? You were quite explicit on this, unreasonable people should not be tolerated. This means one thing only.

Investigations taking place over the last while have suggested beyond reasonable doubt that "FA Hayek" belongs to an individual who posted here in A+A from an account which was permanently banned in 2015 after the account received more than fifty cards and temporary bans.

Boards.ie does not permit site-banned individuals from re-registering without first informing senior site moderators of who they are and receiving permission to go ahead and open a second account. Hence, as of this afternoon, the "FA Hayek" account, the recipient of five cards in the last year and a regular poster here in A+A, has also been site-banned.

Sincere thanks to the careful and attentive forum user who first suggested that there may be a link between "FA Hayek" and the other account.

robindch

^^^ Prison thread is here.

recedite

So, after expressing political views which were similar to those of a poster who was banned in 2015, leading some to believe they were the same individual, FA Hayek has been banned.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

So, after expressing political views which were similar to those of a poster who was banned in 2015, leading some to believe they were the same individual, FA Hayek has been banned.

FYI - the double-ban of this user has nothing to do with political views, despite both FAH and the other user continually insisting that A+A specifically, and boards.ie generally, were hopelessly left-wing, liberal and so on.

On the contrary, convincing evidence from multiple sources, evaluated by multiple senior moderators, indicated beyond any reasonable doubt that user "FA Hayek" was, in fact, the screen name of a similarly angry poster who, having received over fifty cards and bans, was site-banned in 2015.

If the user had been able to post in a civil fashion and engage in civil debate, then that poster would still be posting their views using their original account. Over fifty moderator actions from multiple moderators convincingly suggests that the problem lies not with the site, but with a single, angry individual.

smacl

I'm requesting a minor change to the charter such that where a poster is using an external source to back up their line of argument they paste a link to the source, and use limited quoting of the relevant sections only rather than cutting and pasting large sections of unattributed text. This request has been prompted by two of JC's recent posts here and here, which IMHO amount to little more than spam.

looksee

smacl wrote: »

I'm requesting a minor change to the charter such that where a poster is using an external source to back up their line of argument they paste a link to the source, and use limited quoting of the relevant sections only rather than cutting and pasting large sections of unattributed text. This request has been prompted by two of JC's recent posts here and here, which IMHO amount to little more than spam.

Point taken, though I think this is a general Boards rule - but yes, it should be enforced.

The only reason it was not 'jumped on' is that that thread is Origins of Specious Nonsense, and in fairness its a bit difficult to take it too seriously. We will have a look at it at Mod level, but I do think that it would be difficult to know where to draw the line in terms of of what is and is not acceptable in that particular thread.

Provided it stays civil (and it is, remarkably so) I'd be in favour of it just continuing as it is and letting people call JC (and similarly inclined posters) out on the worst of the nonsense; he is not going to pay any attention and to ban him completely would remove what seems to be a quite popular discussion. I think you have to take the rough with the smooth!

smacl

looksee wrote: »

I think you have to take the rough with the smooth!

Fair enough. It was a minor quibble and I'm all for lighthearted banter within a discussion , just that that personally I find once the sound to noise ratio on a thread falls below a certain level I abandon the discussion.

looksee

I think the sound to noise ratio has been much the same on that thread for years, there has never been much effort to sort it as it is pretty well unsortable, short of closing it, and that would seem to be unnecessary atm. At least it keeps all that discussion in the one thread.

Hotblack Desiato

Can we not just ban/torture people who link to a whole page when referencing a specific post

Not everyone has the same number of posts per page.

Logged in, I'm on 40 per page
Logged out on desktop is 15
Logged out on touch is 12!

looksee

I think we can run with that one Hotblack - I have abbreviated the last offending post and will put a note on the charter.

smacl

looksee wrote: »

I think we can run with that one Hotblack - I have abbreviated the last offending post and will put a note on the charter.

Think HB may have been taking the piss out of me referring to the second link in my previous post there which links a page rather than individual post.

smacl wrote: »

...recent posts here and here...

Mea maxima culpa, hail Mary full of whatever x 10, no further torture necessary

Turtwig

I don't see why it has to be a ban or torture. Why can't it be both?

smacl

Turtwig wrote: »

I don't see why it has to be a ban or torture. Why can't it be both?

Just so long as you keep that pineapple off my pizza

robindch

smacl wrote: »

I'm requesting a minor change to the charter such that where a poster is using an external source to back up their line of argument they paste a link to the source, and use limited quoting of the relevant sections only rather than cutting and pasting large sections of unattributed text.

Quoting text without attributing it is effectively plagiarism and that's considered dishonest. JC's well aware that plagiarism is not allowed and I'm more surprised that s/he's bothered to engage in it as it's so simple to discover it these days.

@JC - cut it out.

@smacl - looksee's already added a note to the forum charter thread.

/thanking youze

Absolam

I appreciate that whilst most regular posters will dismiss or disagree with this purely because of the posters involved (including the fact that I'm the one posting it), my disquiet is such that I think this should be said.

robindch wrote: »

Mod:At this point, as has been pointed out frequently, and most recently yesterday, you've been afforded every freedom to propagate your views, but can't seem to stop yourself from claiming to be persecuted. At this point, and given the tone of your above post - to pick but one of many recent ones - I don't believe that there is any reasonable purpose which could therefore be served by seeing you post in A+A outside of the creationism thread, so your friendly moderator team are now requesting you politely to restrict your posts in A+A to that thread alone. The creationism thread is here:http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056883606
Thanking youze.

It seems to me that such a 'friendly polite request to restrict your posts to the specious nonsense thread' unofficially bans posters, sidestepping the formal boards.ie penalty system. It places the ban outside of the due process and limits for warnings, infractions, and bans, including the scrutiny and balance of the dispute resolution process. Not complying with such an undisputable 'request' then immediately leaves a poster open to the charge of not complying with a moderator instruction, with penalties that are then formally justifiable. That doesn't seem right to me; either someone breaks the rules in the first place and suffers the consequences, or they don't, and this kind of banning avoids even considering whether they have.

The first line of the Charter states that those of all faiths or beliefs are welcome in any discussion, and welcomes any questions/comments relating to religion, morality, ethics or the origins of life in general. The Charter also specifically states that proselytizing is not banned. I think that to then claim JC's (or anyones) posts should serve some reasonable purpose flies in the face of those commitments.

I also get the impression that soapboxing (from the Charter "constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it") seems to be getting repurposed as a catch-all description for pretty much any kind of consistent posting at odds with the gestalt; in other words proselytizing for the wrong team, which is no way to respect the right of people to hold religious or irreligious beliefs which are different, or to show that posting of controversial questions to stimulate debate is acceptable. More and more I get the impression that posters are only welcome to post continuously in A&A if they row in with the prevailing opinions; any consistent offering of alternative views and suggestions of being more comfortable posting elsewhere, trolling, or killing discussion seem to surface, and instances of attacking the poster not the post become more frequent.

Perhaps that's the way many regulars want the forum to be; maybe posters would prefer to change the Charter and remove the commitments to open discussion in favour of a more proscriptive attitude to what posters are allowed to say. Personally, I think JC helps stimulate discussion, and whilst I wouldn't blame anyone for not engaging with, or even ignoring him (though I take issue with those who would abuse him), I think it goes against the spirit of the forum to restrict him in such a fashion.

CabanSail

Absolam wrote: »

It seems to me that such a 'friendly polite request to restrict your posts to the specious nonsense thread' unofficially bans posters, sidestepping the formal boards.ie penalty system. It places the ban outside of the due process and limits for warnings, infractions, and bans, including the scrutiny and balance of the dispute resolution process.

That would be like a tread ban. AFAIK thread bans can be appealed in the DRP forum. There has been one there just recently.

The normal process would be to discuss the issue with the relevent Mod to see if a resolution can be reached before opening a thread in DRP.

Absolam

CabanSail wrote: »

That would be like a tread ban. AFAIK thread bans can be appealed in the DRP forum. There has been one there just recently.
The normal process would be to discuss the issue with the relevent Mod to see if a resolution can be reached before opening a thread in DRP.

As far as I'm aware DRP won't deal with anything that isn't a formal warning, infraction or ban, though I'm open to correction. If JP were to take this particular request to DRP I believe he would be told to discuss with the CMods, as it's not a formal ban. Like I said, I'm open to correction...

CabanSail

I have recently read a DRP concerning a thread ban in AH. Now that may be a one off. In any case it can be discussed with the relevant CMods and Admin if required. If approached politely there is a better chance of good outcome.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

I also get the impression that soapboxing (from the Charter "constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it") seems to be getting repurposed as a catch-all

My take on it is that it is being used to stop what many would consider borderline spamming. If you look at this post for example we see

J C wrote: »

I respectfully disagree with your conclusions about me and my posting style ... but as I'm a guest on your forum, and subject to your authority here when I post, I will obey your instruction to only post on the mega-thread.

whereupon he goes on to post five more times on the same thread over the next few hours. There's a difference between silencing someone because they hold a contrary opinion and telling the loudest person in the room to quiet down a bit as they're drowning out the conversation.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

My take on it is that it is being used to stop what many would consider borderline spamming. If you look at this post for example we see

That may be so, though that would still be using it as something other than what the Charter says it is, all the same, wouldn't it? I'm not really a fan of 'this is borderline that' to be honest; if this is not that, then it's not that. JC isn't spamming, nor is he trolling, or soapboxing. If he didn't entertain discussion of his points, fair enough, but he totally entertains that discussion.

smacl wrote: »

whereupon he goes on to post five more times on the same thread over the next few hours. There's a difference between silencing someone because they hold a contrary opinion and telling the loudest person in the room to quiet down a bit as they're drowning out the conversation.

And there's a difference between telling the loudest person in the room to quiet down a bit, and telling them they can only speak in the little room marked 'nonsense' over in the corner.

robindch

Absolam wrote: »

And there's a difference between telling the loudest person in the room to quiet down a bit, and telling them they can only speak in the little room marked 'nonsense' over in the corner.

JC has been asked innumerable times over the last twelve years to tone down his delivery and while he can do this for short periods, unfortunately, for longer periods, has failed repeatedly. Much of JC's output can be classified as soap-boxing as there is little discernable interest in discussion (which is what the forum is for and what other posters expect) but instead, a greater interest in endless repetition of the same tropes. Soap-boxing is explicitly prohibited by the forum charter. The moderator team has made it clear, on multiple occasions, that a limited amount of this kind of behaviour is fine, but anything which is felt to overstep the general rules of the forum and the expectations of other forum members, will result in either JC's posts being restricted to one thread or will result in JC being carded or banned.

I would also point out that "specious nonsense" is the name of a well-known creationist book of which JC has spoken admiringly. And that the creationism thread is what the forum posters make of it. Posters like oldrnwisr make it a refreshing well of sanity and clarity. Posters like JC debase oldrnwisr's contributions by, in the main, soap-boxing back at them.

The reason - as has also been pointed out many, many times - why JC is permitted to post in A+A regardless of his soapboxing, is because of the quality of a reasonable amount of the debate which his posts cause.

His accusations that he's being silenced or persecuted are really very silly indeed. If you check out JC's infraction page, for example, you'll see that he's received seventeen cards. Fifteen of these cards were given by moderators in the christianity forum and only two were given by A+A moderators.

The reality of persecution, it seems, lies not in what the non-religious do to the religious, but in what the religious do to each other.

looksee

I think it is only reasonable that since JC is being discussed here he should be able to respond in this thread if he so wishes. If the views could be expressed in more general terms rather than focusing on one individual I think that would also be more appropriate.

MrPudding

looksee wrote: »

I think it is only reasonable that since JC is being discussed here he should be able to respond in this thread if he so wishes. If the views could be expressed in more general terms rather than focusing on one individual I think that would also be more appropriate.

I get your point that speaking in general terms can often be better, but how can you speak in general terms when you are discussing, specifically, an individual, that individual's specific behaviour and sanctions that are being applied to that specific individual.

Sure, we can speak in general term about acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, but the current subject of discussion is JC's restriction to the nonsense thread. If that is the specific subject then how can one reasonably or practically discuss that in general terms?

MrP

Absolam

Yes, I'm sure JCs posts could be classified as soap-boxing, though I think it would step beyond the definition we have in the charter; I have never noticed JC refuse to entertain discussion of his posts, even if his points (like many other posters) can be repetitious. I think proselytizing is a far more accurate description, and that's explicitly permitted by the forum charter; it doesn't take much then, to say that he is not in fact, overstepping the general rules of the forum, whatever about the expectations of other forum members.

I think it's fair to say that whilst we all know that 'The Origin of Specious Nonsense' is a creationst book, it's not lost on anyone that confining a poster whose opinions are not much lauded to a thread of the same name is a less than subtle put down.

I'm not a mod, so I can't check JCs infractions page, but I think it's silly to say he's not being silenced (whatever about persecuted) when he has literally been 'asked' not to speak.

looksee

MrPudding wrote: »

I get your point that speaking in general terms can often be better, but how can you speak in general terms when you are discussing, specifically, an individual, that individual's specific behaviour and sanctions that are being applied to that specific individual.

Sure, we can speak in general term about acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, but the current subject of discussion is JC's restriction to the nonsense thread. If that is the specific subject then how can one reasonably or practically discuss that in general terms?

MrP

You could discuss whether it is ever appropriate to restrict anyone to a single thread, what consititutes soapboxing, and so on. I appreciate that there are problems in this case which is why I offered it as a suggestion rather than making a mod declaration.

At the same time the specific situation is being dealt with at mod level, or at Cmod or admin level if they get involved, rather than being a public debate about an individual.

oldrnwisr

Absolam wrote: »

The first line of the Charter states that those of all faiths or beliefs are welcome in any discussion, and welcomes any questions/comments relating to religion, morality, ethics or the origins of life in general. The Charter also specifically states that proselytizing is not banned. I think that to then claim JC's (or anyones) posts should serve some reasonable purpose flies in the face of those commitments.

I also get the impression that soapboxing (from the Charter "constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it") seems to be getting repurposed as a catch-all description for pretty much any kind of consistent posting at odds with the gestalt; in other words proselytizing for the wrong team, which is no way to respect the right of people to hold religious or irreligious beliefs which are different, or to show that posting of controversial questions to stimulate debate is acceptable. More and more I get the impression that posters are only welcome to post continuously in A&A if they row in with the prevailing opinions; any consistent offering of alternative views and suggestions of being more comfortable posting elsewhere, trolling, or killing discussion seem to surface, and instances of attacking the poster not the post become more frequent.

Perhaps that's the way many regulars want the forum to be; maybe posters would prefer to change the Charter and remove the commitments to open discussion in favour of a more proscriptive attitude to what posters are allowed to say. Personally, I think JC helps stimulate discussion, and whilst I wouldn't blame anyone for not engaging with, or even ignoring him (though I take issue with those who would abuse him), I think it goes against the spirit of the forum to restrict him in such a fashion.

I've highlighted the sections of your post which I feel constitute the core of the problem. Firstly, people who want to proselytise or claim their religion is the absolute truth are more than welcome. Plenty have posted such posts before. But the posters here are likely to challenge any such claims. Now, there have been plenty of posters from the Christianity forum who have proselytised or went against the prevailing opinion and not been subject to the kind of sanction which JC now experiences. Antiskeptic, philologos, Soul Winner, tatranska, Nick Park (and those are just the names that spring immediately to mind) have all engaged in reasonable debate on matters of belief and faith without invoking the kind of ire that JC does or without the kind of sanction (or any sanction) that JC has been subjected to. Then of course you have people who engage on social issues with contrary viewpoints like One Eyed Jack who manage to engage in civil and reasonable debate. And then you have Christians like Peregrinus who contribute positively to the forum on all sorts of issues.

What separates JC from others is his unwillingness to engage in further debate once his points have been refuted. He either posts glib remarks in response to comprehensive answers (like this example on Christianity) or he openly refuses to engage with the points presented to him (like this or this or this) or he claims that no evidence has been presented to him while ignoring precisely the posts which have done so (like this exchange) or by presenting large chunks of c/p text (sometimes without reference) and with no additional commentary of his own (like this) or link dumping which is against the charter of more than a few forums I've seen (like this). These are the behaviours which cause JC to incur sanctions like the cards mentioned by Rob or the current thread restriction. The problem, such as it is, is the response that JC's behaviour provokes. When he copy/pastes text without reference, fails to engage with reasonable counter arguments, ignores counter arguments while claiming none have been presented and repeats the same cliched statements over and over this is going to prove irksome to people who engage in and expect civil and meaningful discussion. Eventually the to and fro between JC and the posters who call him out on such behaviour has the effect of grinding the thread to a halt and going massively off-topic. As such, mod action is needed. As Rob has explained, the type of sanction which has been applied has other useful side effects like being a useful database of counterapologetics.

MrPudding

looksee wrote: »

You could discuss whether it is ever appropriate to restrict anyone to a single thread,

I am pretty sure this has been discussed before, and the view was it was either that or a complete forum ban. Speaking in general terms, I believe it was felt that there was a certain utility in keeping posters that post utter nonsense around, as they do a service in pointing out nonsense to passers-by and giving others an opportunity to explain reality and generally inform. I must admit, I was of this view myself, for a time, but I seriously think that the utility in this needs to be looked at again.

looksee wrote: »

what consititutes soapboxing, and so on. I appreciate that there are problems in this case which is why I offered it as a suggestion rather than making a mod declaration.

I thought what constituted soapboxing was a settled matter...

Number 3 of the charter wrote:

constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying, and will not be tolerated. You are expected to contribute something other than placard proclamations.

I would suggest that repeatedly, over a period of 12 years, spouting the same nonsense, ignoring highly detailed, fully referenced and intelligent refutations of that nonsense and repeating the same nonsense again as if nothing has happened is pretty close to textbook soapboxing. Happy for you to explain if I am wrong on this. Not being argumentative here, just genuinely surprised that there is a question as to whether or not this behaviour constitutes soapboxing.

looksee wrote: »

At the same time the specific situation is being dealt with at mod level, or at Cmod or admin level if they get involved, rather than being a public debate about an individual.

I don't necessarily disagree with this actually, but would suggest that if this is the case then this particular conversation should have been shut down immediately. That said, I do think other users of the forum should be able to voice their opinions, and it is very hard to do that in general terms when the issue is with an individual.

MrP