[barmar]

I just deleted an off-topic post by 32519 (a link to an off-site news article) in this thread.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2013-October-20, 14:31, said:

No, I'm not going to ban someone just because lots of other members disagree with what he has to say. I'll curtail a thread if it has turned into a useless argument, but I'm not kicking him out completely.

No one is asking you to ban him because they disagree with what he says.

I'm am stating that he should be banned because he is a disruptive idiot who genuinely seems to delight in pissing all over people's conversations.

I can't recall a single instance where he ever contributed anything of value to a discussion.
However, I can point out dozens of occasions where he dragged a previously constructive conversation down into a useless rat hole.

I don't know if he's mentally unbalanced or simply a troll.
Either way, he adds nothing of value to the forums and makes things worse for the all the rest of us.

Ever wonder why most of the decent discussion about bridge has moved over the Bridgewinners?

The abject lack of community standards has a lot to do with it...

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-October-20, 14:31, said:

No, I'm not going to ban someone just because lots of other members disagree with what he has to say. I'll curtail a thread if it has turned into a useless argument, but I'm not kicking him out completely.

Well, we were asked for opinions, and I think that the thread has been fun. No one has to read it (or contribute to it) if they don't want to.

One particular poster has been getting a bit hysterical, but I really think that it would be best to let other posters decide when they wish to ignore the posts (some have done this already) and that a person who does not wish to be ganged up on could possibly not post the same things over and over, not challenge people on made-up facts (the "fake" reason the LHC has been turned off?) and could even answer some of the questions he has been asked.

On the other hand, a temporary lock may be a good idea, as it might allow "people" to think about their posts and those of others, and perhaps decide to engage in an actual discussion.

[jeffford76]

barmar, on 2013-October-20, 14:31, said:

No, I'm not going to ban someone just because lots of other members disagree with what he has to say.

I don't think someone should be banned because other people disagree. I think he should be banned because he's not attempting to make any effort to engage in normal conversation, and he's causing it to be impossible for the people who want to do so.

No one has a right to post here. If banning someone makes it better for everyone else, it should be done.

[sharon j]

I guess I'm a lurker. I enjoyed reading the thread and thought the subject was very interesting but did not contribute. I hope it is opened again because I think the topic is important to understand.

[the hog]

I am extremely angry, Barmar and Ben! I just spent one hour reading the religion thread when I should have been marking term papers. Please don't do this, (tease), again!

Please open the thread again. If you don't the numeric one may start posting about bridge again.

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2013-October-20, 14:33, said:

I just deleted an off-topic post by 32519 (a link to an off-site news article) in this thread.

You mean the same one as post #91 in the Water Cooler's BBF Religious Matrix 2 thread?

This post has been edited by barmar: 2013-October-21, 15:44
Reason for edit: Removed quoted post from WC thread

[the hog]

Just one point I would like to make. No one is asking or has ever asked anyone to respond to any of the numeric one's posts. If you don't like what he posts, just ignore read - read it if you like, but don't respond. Personally I enjoy reading his posts as I find the convoluted logic amusing. The thread can continue as normal with just that poster's posts ignored.

[inquiry]

A back and forth between hog and glen was deleted in a bridge related article. Actually, glen's post was only a very mild plea to stick to the subject but it quoted the earlier post that was deleted. Try to tone it down or posting moderation before post appear will be started. We really, really don't want to do that valuable posters.

[inquiry]

Since religion 2 was open (at least for now), I have merged religion 1 and 2. Not entirely sure what happened, but some of the original post disappeared perhaps (not sure). I know the poll disappeared which is good, because a poll where the only three answers are the guy is nuts, the guy is really nuts, or the guy is totally crazy (or something similar) is offensive to me (as all choices are nuts)... and no, I never went to the link so I have no opinion on the nuts issue.

[nige1]

barmar, on 2013-October-20, 14:31, said:

No, I'm not going to ban someone just because lots of other members disagree with what he has to say. I'll curtail a thread if it has turned into a useless argument, but I'm not kicking him out completely.

hrothgar, on 2013-October-20, 14:54, said:

No one is asking you to ban him because they disagree with what he says. I'm am stating that he should be banned because he is a disruptive idiot who genuinely seems to delight in pissing all over people's conversations. I can't recall a single instance where he ever contributed anything of value to a discussion. However, I can point out dozens of occasions where he dragged a previously constructive conversation down into a useless rat hole. I don't know if he's mentally unbalanced or simply a troll. Either way, he adds nothing of value to the forums and makes things worse for the all the rest of us.

Posts like this seem more offensive than anything by 32519. Especially when you consider that Hrothgar can easily follow MikeH's example and ignore 32519.

GreenMan, on 2013-October-20, 08:11, said:

Someone Is Wrong On The Internet is a serious problem that afflicts many people who could be living normal lives.

I hope that's all that motivates those who pillory 32519. Remember the disgraceful treatment of Gerard Cohen.

[GreenMan]

nige1, on 2013-October-21, 05:18, said:

I hope that's all that motivates those who pillory 32519. Remember the disgraceful treatment of Gerard Cohen.

The psychology/sociology of ostracism and so forth is complex and above my pay grade, so who knows what's actually going on.

[cherdano]

I just don't think ignoring trolls is a sufficient solutions. Back a few years ago I actually cared about BBF (and was probably posting much more constructively then). I wanted it to be a useful site also for newcomers. Having lots of threads that are full of trolls, or completely ill-posed questions are a detriment to that, even if long-time posters know how to ignore these.

Right now BBF is probably in a state where noone cares about it in the sense above, so maybe it's actually too late to adopt some meaningful community standards about posts.

[Zelandakh]

cherdano, on 2013-October-21, 08:38, said:

I wanted it to be a useful site also for newcomers.

Right now BBF is probably in a state where noone cares about it in the sense above,

Do you really believe there are no posters who attempt to provide useful advice to newcomers? Or that there are no posters who are generally (>99%) constructive?

As far as 32519 is concerned, I was involved in much discourse with him in the early days. I believe that all of my posts in those threads were positive and constructive. At some point I felt that the tone in the threads changed towards an attempt at trolling and I stopped responding aside from correcting blatant untruths or writing, in effect, "please refer to the earlier answer". As a result, this series of threads has almost died out.

Having read the thread in question after the locking (previously having not opened it at all) it seems clear to me that Mike was identified as someone who could be goaded a little on the subject of religion. When that did not really work it all went a little strange in getting reactions from some other posters.

In other words, noone should ever be discouraged from responding constructively to a thread, nor of correcting obviously ridiculous statements, particularly those that might be considered reasonable by other readers. However, also be aware that certain posters enjoy baiting others and that they are never worth getting upset over. If you enjoy showing how ridiculous they are to the community and can do so without aiding the threadjacking then fine. Otherwise it is usually better to ignore them and instead a write a reply that gets back to the discussion on-topic. By doing this you are depriving the disruptive individual the result that they are aiming for while simultaneously adding something positive to the thread and community.

Let us all show that cherdano's pessimism is wrong and that we do care about the BBF community!

[barmar]

jeffford76, on 2013-October-20, 18:11, said:

I don't think someone should be banned because other people disagree.

I'll put it another way: being an idiot is not against our acceptable use policy.

Quote

I think he should be banned because he's not attempting to make any effort to engage in normal conversation, and he's causing it to be impossible for the people who want to do so.

He's only causing that because everyone feels the need to respond to him. No one is forcing them to. If people wanted to continue the normal conversation in that thread, they could have. But everyone has chosen to let it become monopolized by the exchanges with 32519, and that's what has made it unproductive.

I'd almost like to say that religious debates should simply be prohibited from the WC. They never go well, and they always just rehash the same things. There are no new points that can be made on either side of the debate, and the chance that you'll change anyone's viewpoint is tiny.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-October-21, 15:21, said:

I'd almost like to say that religious debates should simply be prohibited from the WC. They never go well, and they always just rehash the same things. There are no new points that can be made on either side of the debate, and the chance that you'll change anyone's viewpoint is tiny.

On the other hand, people enjoy them, and no one is forced to participate. If it spilled over into bridge or other WC threads it would be another matter, but this does not happen.

[barmar]

Did people really enjoy what that thread had become. It seemed like everyone was just beating their heads against the wall, and getting extremely exasperated.

[barmar]

Bbradley62, on 2013-October-20, 21:47, said:

You mean the same one as post #91 in the Water Cooler's BBF Religious Matrix 2 thread?

Yes. It was slightly relevant there (it's the WC, things are more flexible there). Now I'll edit your post to remove the off-topic link.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-October-21, 15:29, said:

Did people really enjoy what that thread had become. It seemed like everyone was just beating their heads against the wall, and getting extremely exasperated.

I don't see why anyone would continue to participate if they didn't enjoy it, or felt they could learn something from some of the comments.

[jeffford76]

barmar, on 2013-October-21, 15:21, said:

I'll put it another way: being an idiot is not against our acceptable use policy.

Maybe it should be.