Flooding and off topic Posts

ISAW

Stand by to repel boarders!

On the general point an FAQ outlining what is an acceptable argument should be in the charter.
Links to logical fallacy and reasoning sites.

A procedure for flooders - warning shot, temporary deletions, temporary ban ban.

Warnings should be given on request of a quota of several regular posters or ISS members say three or four? Bans should include an explaination of the prison system.

Maybe a sticky thread on complaints which covers OT flooders spammers advertisers etc.

On particular posters I suggest you do as I did. Ignore them. do not feed the trolls and they will go away. I have come across people posting on topics such as "holohoax" before (actually I really only came across ONE who did it) who posted acceptable skeptical arguments on other topics. At the same time that person was a nasty ad hominal attacker if I recall correctly. If they are interested in skeptical debate they will adjust to it.

meditraitor

ISAW wrote:

Stand by to repel boarders!

On the general point an FAQ outlining what is an acceptable argument should be in the charter.
Links to logical fallacy and reasoning sites.

A procedure for flooders - warning shot, temporary deletions, temporary ban ban.

Warnings should be given on request of a quota of several regular posters or ISS members say three or four? Bans should include an explaination of the prison system.

Maybe a sticky thread on complaints which covers OT flooders spammers advertisers etc.

On particular posters I suggest you do as I did. Ignore them. do not feed the trolls and they will go away. I have come across people posting on topics such as "holohoax" before (actually I really only came across ONE who did it) who posted acceptable skeptical arguments on other topics. At the same time that person was a nasty ad hominal attacker if I recall correctly. If they are interested in skeptical debate they will adjust to it.

You must be joking :rolleyes:

So ""for instance if four people of boards(ISS members?) get together and decide an opinion is wrong they form a coalition and have someone warned about not agreeing with them?

Links to logical fallacy and reasoning sites

Expand and explain,please

ad hominal

give it up, doesnt impress anyone..

Look, dont want to sound abrasive but this is another thread with the subject matter being used to effectively have someone banned(we know who they are, and if I was them I would inform mods and admins of these repeated attemts to block free speech, people get banned for being repetative on other forums),

This is the worst case of a bad looser I have ever seen, you were trounced in previous debates, and now you are restarting another thread with basically the same topic,,

no need for sophistry today, its friday

Who's the mod in here? Please look at this repeated calls for the banning of people and either advise Isaw and whoever else(you know who you are) to stop or ban the people they want gone!!

Medi

(actually now that I think about it, maybe this thread should be sent to the cuckoo nest)

ISAW

meditraitor wrote:

You must be joking :rolleyes:

So ""for instance if four people of boards(ISS members?) get together and decide an opinion is wrong they form a coalition and have someone warned about not agreeing with them?

In effect yes. If someone comes here and people think what they doing is not welcome here then they tell the person to moderate their behaviour. If they dont the people complain and the person is disciplined.

Think of it luke a private club. the licencincing laws still apply but if the club insists people wear ties then you wear ties or you dont go in. If you come in withouot a tie someone might offer you one. If you decline the offer from three or four people then you are kicked out.


Expand and explain,please
search the net under logical fallacy list and take your pick

give it up, doesnt impress anyone..
Ironic That is ad hominal

Look, dont want to sound abrasive but this is another thread with the subject matter being used to effectively have someone banned(we know who they are, and if I was them I would inform mods and admins of these repeated attemts to block free speech, people get banned for being repetative on other forums),

No we dont know who they are. And I dont intend to go into that since YOU are now being ad hominal.
The moderator asked for a thread about flooding etc. I began one. what is your problem with that? If you have a problem about that post something to this thread. contribute to the subject or go elsewhere.

This is the worst case of a bad looser I have ever seen, you were trounced in previous debates, and now you are restarting another thread with basically the same topic,,

I refer you to above. It was SUGGESTED nmy Davros that a flooding thread be started. As to your opinion and personal attack on me with regard to any debates I was in in other threads let others go and check out your unsupported allegation in those other threads.

Who's the mod in here? Please look at this repeated calls for the banning of people and either advise Isaw and whoever else(you know who you are) to stop or ban the people they want gone!!

Apparently YOU are NOT the mod. And you are accusing me of recommenfing we ban someone. Where did I do that. I am suggesting some general pointers as to a protocol for this group. If you have a problem with that please state what that is. and dont try the "anything is allowed because it is free speech" line as that has already been dealt with.

(actually now that I think about it, maybe this thread should be sent to the cuckoo nest)

Whatever do you mean by that remark?

Myksyk

meditraitor wrote:

You must be joking :rolleyes:

So ""for instance if four people of boards(ISS members?) get together and decide an opinion is wrong they form a coalition and have someone warned about not agreeing with them?

I too would be skeptical of this course of action. For one thing, this is a public forum and involves many people who are not ISS members and even members do not speak on behalf of the society. (By the way, there is no way of knowing who are members and who are not).


I would be very slow to hand out bans if people are interacting reasonably and courteously. The nature of their views is important but secondary. Difference of opinion is surely to be expected. This can't become a closed shop.

If threads go on ad nauseum and most relevant points have been deemed to have been made then the Mod can always close the thread in the same way a radio interviewer might close an interview if it has become crashingly boring and repetitive. I don't think either side should whine about thread closures in these circumstances.

Look, dont want to sound abrasive but this is another thread with the subject matter being used to effectively have someone banned(we know who they are, and if I was them I would inform mods and admins of these repeated attemts to block free speech, people get banned for being repetative on other forums),

Who's the mod in here?

You may agree medi that it is more difficult to mod those forums where contentious issues are going to be discussed and where emotions are likely to be high at times. I understand from this forum's Mod that there is a concerted effort to facilitate wide-ranging and free discussion of issues with an avoidance of personal attacks. This can be almost an impossible task at times. Banning is a last resort but IMHO should never be simply because someone disagrees with you. However, it is also difficult to stop the forum being rendered useless by iterative flooding from certain sources. After all, this is a skeptics forum and presumably will be Modded with that bias, as some other forums are (e.g. Christianity, paranormal, paganism etc). I don't see anything wrong with that.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Apparently YOU are NOT the mod. And you are accusing me of recommenfing we ban someone. Where did I do that.

Here:

I vote ban him.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2631455&postcount=3

Myksyk

I think that's what they call a clear answer!!!

ISAW

Myksyk wrote:

snip
I would be very slow to hand out bans if people are interacting reasonably and courteously. The nature of their views is important but secondary. Difference of opinion is surely to be expected. This can't become a closed shop.

I too would be slow. But not static.
I find all this odd since PSI came here and had a poke a davros and left. I took a look at PSI. I found he moderates Paranormal and SCI. I took a look and those forums found them interesting and posted some messages to them.
PSI then PMd me and suggested that Paranormal was a believers forum and that I would be banned if I asked believers for evidence for their belief. Apparently one can do this.
So if you think Irish Skeptics is a bit harsh hop over to Paranormal and try your free speech argument on them and see how far you will get.
As far as the door I would think.

Furthermore difference of opinion is acceptable. It is SPAMMING UNSUPPORTED opinion and disregarding standards of debate I don't accept.
I also dont accept that freedom of speech means freedom to have an audience. Finally some opinions are NOT acceptable. If someone suggested that pederasts should be given equal time and are worthy of equal status would you accept their position?

If threads go on ad nauseum and most relevant points have been deemed to have been made then the Mod can always close the thread in the same way a radio interviewer might close an interview if it has become crashingly boring and repetitive. I don't think either side should whine about thread closures in these circumstances.

No I dont. Nor do I think it is acceptable for a new thread on a different topic to start and the trolls start reposting all the same unsupported arguments again.

You may agree medi that it is more difficult to mod those forums where contentious issues are going to be discussed and where emotions are likely to be high at times. I understand from this forum's Mod that there is a concerted effort to facilitate wide-ranging and free discussion of issues with an avoidance of personal attacks. This can be almost an impossible task at times. Banning is a last resort but IMHO should never be simply because someone disagrees with you. However, it is also difficult to stop the forum being rendered useless by iterative flooding from certain sources. After all, this is a skeptics forum and presumably will be Modded with that bias, as some other forums are (e.g. Christianity, paranormal, paganism etc). I don't see anything wrong with that.

I have two points here. First I actually advocated all the above (except the modding bias)
Second I do not think there has beeen ANY modding bias which has someone banned. Should we be attacked by trolls then we should have a policy for dealing with them. A fair and transparent one. That is what I am suggesting.

davros

One point I'd like to make is that I don't believe this board is subject to trolls.

I did chop off one thread at the beginning for being likely to enflame passions and to avoid the rehashing of arguments completely played out in recent days. But the regular posters here are both sincere and knowledgeable on their topics and I respect that. And nobody should assume that the most likely posters to be banned are those whose views are supposedly at odds with those of the ISS.

Threads here are thick with facts and references on both sides and it's far beyond my capability to establish how relevant or true they are.

That said, there seems to be a general demand for a heavier hand in modding. I'm not going to abandon the laissez faire model myself but there are other options. I'm looking into them.

davros

ISAW wrote:

On the general point an FAQ outlining what is an acceptable argument should be in the charter. Links to logical fallacy and reasoning sites.

I like this suggestion. I'll dig up something on how to frame/recognise a good argument and provide some useful links.

ISAW

davros wrote:

I like this suggestion. I'll dig up something on how to frame/recognise a good argument and provide some useful links.

heres something from operation clambake. It is based on the Demon haunted world:
http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
Based on the book "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark" published by Headline 1996.


The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

...

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

heres something from operation clambake. It is based on the Demon haunted world:
http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
Based on the book "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark" published by Headline 1996.


The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

...

I particularly enjoyed this one:

Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).

Kind of like "natural law".

Poisonwood

>Kind of like "natural law"

One has to agree that this is special pleading.

davros

I've split this thread. If you want to make a comment on "Natural law", see the other thread. This thread, ironically, is about off-topic posts.

meditraitor

ISAW wrote:

In effect yes. If someone comes here and people think what they doing is not welcome here then they tell the person to moderate their behaviour. If they dont the people complain and the person is disciplined.

Think of it luke a private club. the licencincing laws still apply but if the club insists people wear ties then you wear ties or you dont go in. If you come in withouot a tie someone might offer you one. If you decline the offer from three or four people then you are kicked out.


Expand and explain,please
search the net under logical fallacy list and take your pick

Look, dont want to sound abrasive but this is another thread with the subject matter being used to effectively have someone banned(we know who they are, and if I was them I would inform mods and admins of these repeated attemts to block free speech, people get banned for being repetative on other forums),

No we dont know who they are. And I dont intend to go into that since YOU are now being ad hominal.
The moderator asked for a thread about flooding etc. I began one. what is your problem with that? If you have a problem about that post something to this thread. contribute to the subject or go elsewhere.



I refer you to above. It was SUGGESTED nmy Davros that a flooding thread be started. As to your opinion and personal attack on me with regard to any debates I was in in other threads let others go and check out your unsupported allegation in those other threads.




Apparently YOU are NOT the mod. And you are accusing me of recommenfing we ban someone. Where did I do that. I am suggesting some general pointers as to a protocol for this group. If you have a problem with that please state what that is. and dont try the "anything is allowed because it is free speech" line as that has already been dealt with.





Whatever do you mean by that remark?

Ad Hominem is the most familiar of informal fallacies, and—with the possible exception of Undistributed Middle—the most familiar logical fallacy of them all. It is also one of the most used and abused of fallacies, and both justified and unjustified accusations of Ad Hominem abound in any debate.

The phrase "ad hominem argument" is sometimes used to refer to a very different type of argument, namely, one that uses premisses accepted by the opposition to argue for a position. In other words, if you are trying to convince someone of something, using premisses that the person accepts—whether or not you believe them yourself. This is not necessarily a fallacious argument, and is often rhetorically effective.

your boring me now,

Tu Quoque

ISAW

meditraitor wrote:

Ad Hominem is the most familiar of informal fallacies, and—with the possible exception of Undistributed Middle—the most familiar logical fallacy of them all. It is also one of the most used and abused of fallacies, and both justified and unjustified accusations of Ad Hominem abound in any debate.

The phrase "ad hominem argument" is sometimes used to refer to a very different type of argument, namely, one that uses premisses accepted by the opposition to argue for a position. In other words, if you are trying to convince someone of something, using premisses that the person accepts—whether or not you believe them yourself. This is not necessarily a fallacious argument, and is often rhetorically effective.

your boring me now,

Tu Quoque

Ad hominem literally means "against the person". If yu attack the person instead of the argument then it is ad hominem. Accusing someone of bring boring is just that.

Deal with the issue please and steer clear of whether you think the person making it is boring or not.

meditraitor

ISAW wrote:

Ad hominem literally means "against the person". If yu attack the person instead of the argument then it is ad hominem. Accusing someone of bring boring is just that.

Deal with the issue please and steer clear of whether you think the person making it is boring or not.

:rolleyes: Flooding

Lucky nobody agree's with your argument or you would be banned yourself brother..

over and out...

ISAW

meditraitor wrote:

:rolleyes: Flooding

Lucky nobody agree's with your argument or you would be banned yourself brother..

over and out...

You seem a bit minimalist in your argument here. Your appeal to ignorance does not assist your position. I mean who is this "nobody" you happen to know who agrees with me? Do you perhaps mean that there is not anybody who agrees with me? I think you might be proven wrong there. If one person agrees with me it means you are WRONG!

I was going to quote from Beckett and suggest if you are really trying hard to fail you should fail better but it seems in that at least it is I that am wrong.

It seems you cant support you own ad hominal attacks so rather than withdraw them and concentrate on supporting the points you raised with some evidence you appeal to ignorance and suggest that nobody is on my side.

Look! whether or not people believe what I say it is supported with evidence and not based on personal attack on other people! Nor is that evidence from a single biased source. So please take your sock puppetery feining self righteous defence of others elsewhere or provide something to back up YOUR OWN arguments. You will NOT get anywhere in accusing ME of flooding. It is quite clear to any rational personm that I only responded to people personally when I was personally attacked and I did not spam or flood in anything off topic.

Troll somebody else. I am not rising to your bait.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

You seem a bit minimalist in your argument here. Your appeal to ignorance does not assist your position. I mean who is this "nobody" you happen to know who agrees with me? Do you perhaps mean that there is not anybody who agrees with me? I think you might be proven wrong there. If one person agrees with me it means you are WRONG!

I was going to quote from Beckett and suggest if you are really trying hard to fail you should fail better but it seems in that at least it is I that am wrong.

It seems you cant support you own ad hominal attacks so rather than withdraw them and concentrate on supporting the points you raised with some evidence you appeal to ignorance and suggest that nobody is on my side.

Look! whether or not people believe what I say it is supported with evidence and not based on personal attack on other people! Nor is that evidence from a single biased source. So please take your sock puppetery feining self righteous defence of others elsewhere or provide something to back up YOUR OWN arguments. You will NOT get anywhere in accusing ME of flooding. It is quite clear to any rational personm that I only responded to people personally when I was personally attacked and I did not spam or flood in anything off topic.

Troll somebody else. I am not rising to your bait.

You really should stand in front of the mirror when you make that speech.

davros

I've tried shutting down this sniping a couple of times now. Seriously, not a word more. I'm warming up my banning finger.

meditraitor

"Who's mototrcycle is this
Threads
Who's threads
Threads Dead baby"

:eek:

Obni

davros wrote:

That said, there seems to be a general demand for a heavier hand in modding. I'm not going to abandon the laissez faire model myself but there are other options. I'm looking into them.

The government that governs best, governs least. (H.D. Thoreau?)
The moderator that moderates best, moderates least.
Vive laissez faire!

ISAW

Obni wrote:

The government that governs best, governs least. (H.D. Thoreau?)
The moderator that moderates best, moderates least.
Vive laissez faire!

Didn't he also write about the tyrrany of the majority? oops. Another natural law argument.

meditraitor

ISAW wrote:

Warnings should be given on request of a quota of several regular posters or ISS members say three or four? Bans should include an explaination of the prison system.

.

+

ISAW wrote:

Didn't he also write about the tyrrany of the majority? oops

= LOL @ your logic

:rolleyes:


And no its not a natural law argument

ISAW

meditraitor wrote:

And no its not a natural law argument

What was tyranny to a pre constitutional pre democratic United states citizen? On what idea was it based? And if the majority in a democracy can do wrong then according to what idea of wrong are they transgressing?

ISAW

meditraitor wrote:

LOL @ your logic

this isnt a question of logic. Three of four is not a majority. This forum is for skeptics. I think Irish skeptics should accept opinion from anyone else but if that person becomes a nuisance that person should be banned. they should be given ample chance to contribute but if they dont ban them. I dont think a vote of the majority is required for that. the complaint of several serious contributers should be enough. That is my opinion. It does not even need to go into the charter to be carried out. I dont believing in giving people an audience. They are entitled to an opinion but NOT to an audience for it. Nor do I think an inordinate amount of time on off the wall opinions is warranted.

Eriugena

This ISAW likes to talk about proof, logic, and the neccesity of supporting claims. So once again I call on them to support their claim that natural law exists. All they have one so far is post evidence that people believe in natural law. ISAW continues to try and have me banned in an effort to avoid responsibility. They claim to have me on ignore. This is like the child who blocks their ears and then imagines that whatever it is no longer exists.

It is high time ISAW either demonstrate the existence of natural law or admit that it is just a belief they have.

meditraitor

Eriugena wrote:

This ISAW likes to talk about proof, logic, and the neccesity of supporting claims. So once again I call on them to support their claim that natural law exists. All they have one so far is post evidence that people believe in natural law. ISAW continues to try and have me banned in an effort to avoid responsibility. They claim to have me on ignore. This is like the child who blocks their ears and then imagines that whatever it is no longer exists.

It is high time ISAW either demonstrate the existence of natural law or admit that it is just a belief they have.

Your clutching at straws if you think he is going to prove anything other than his own ignorance...

Im beginning to think he is only posting here to wind people up :cool:

Which natural law is he trying to prove ?

Standards that govern human behavior objectively derived from the nature of human beings

laws both physical and moral found in general revelation

A theory that has been tested many thousands of times and found always to be true, eg, the law of gravity

set of principles which govern human interactions, which are built into the structure of the universe, as opposed to being imposed by human beings

a statement that expresses generally observed behavior

Describes the nature of creation. It represents a common-sense understanding of the world

The universal pattern of action required by human nature in general (not in the concrete) for its completion or perfection

Naturally occurring principles of existence which regulate the manner in which manifestation occurs. Those parameters of Nature/God which channel material existence in universally consistent ways to facilitate evolution. The Will of God as the determiner for the ways and means of creation, in which consciousness is expanded.

God, or nature, or universal reason has given humanity a law from which the norms of all human law must be derived. The role of human beings is to simply deduce natural law correctly. There is very little agreement on the definition of "right reason," however.

In Stoicism and later in other philosophies, a body of laws or principles that are believed to be derived from nature and binding on human society and that constitute a higher form of justice than civil or judicial law

law: a rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society

In law, natural law is the doctrine that just laws are immanent in nature (that can be claimed as discovered but not created by such things as a bill of rights) and/or that they can emerge by natural process of resolving conflicts (as embodied by common law). These two aspects are actually very different, and can sometimes oppose or complement each other, although they share the common trait that they rely on immanence as opposed to design in finding just laws. In either case, natural law is co

Googled Natural law and these are what came up,, he may prove which one(or many) in truth exists before he can prove the exitense of said to me...

ISAW

meditraitor wrote:

Your clutching at straws if you think he is going to prove anything other than his own ignorance...

Im beginning to think he is only posting here to wind people up :cool:

Which natural law is he trying to prove ?

This is off topic for this thread. there is another thread on this and I have outlined what natural law is there.

You are also indulging (AGAIN) in personal attack. I am now openly complaining about you. I hope others will chime in if they agree with me and if you dont behave you will be banned.

As regards the quote from Eriugenia. Unless someone quotes him I have no idea what he is posting since he is on my ignore list. It appears he is off topic also and you are following in that line. If you continue in any more ad hominem or go off topic I will also ignore you and will be asking for you to be banned.

Please don't try my patience any further.

Googled Natural law and these are what came up,, he may prove which one(or many) in truth exists before he can prove the exitense of said to me...

oops! you just did. Personal attack AGAIN and OFF TOPIC again

I will now be ignoring you.
PM me with an aploogy and I will consider taking you off my ignore list.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

meditraitor wrote:

This is off topic for this thread. there is another thread on this and I have outlined what natural law is there.

You have so far failed to substantiate your existence claim.

You are also indulging (AGAIN) in personal attack. I am now openly complaining about you. I hope others will chime in if they agree with me and if you dont behave you will be banned.

But mounting a banning campaign is not a personal attack?

As regards the quote from Eriugenia. Unless someone quotes him I have no idea what he is posting since he is on my ignore list.

So ISAW keeps saying: "the lady doth protest too much."

It appears he is off topic also and you are following in that line. If you continue in any more ad hominem or go off topic I will also ignore you and will be asking for you to be banned.

More delusions of grandeur.

Please don't try my patience any further.
oops! you just did. Personal attack AGAIN and OFF TOPIC again
I will now be ignoring you.
PM me with an aploogy and I will consider taking you off my ignore list.

At this rate the only posts visible to ISAW will be those posted by same!

Eriugena

meditraitor wrote:

Your clutching at straws if you think he is going to prove anything other than his own ignorance...

That's all I expect.

Im beginning to think he is only posting here to wind people up :cool:

Only beginning?

Which natural law is he trying to prove ?

Whichever he/she feels like at the time. Its straight out of Alice in Wonderland.
This is all quite on topic which is misnamed. ISAW does not know what flooding is. It should be entitled Trolling and Off-topic posts. ISAW is clearly trolling the board.

davros

Sod it