Feeding the Trolls

kilmuckridge

Hi

I am kind of new to the whole message board thing, but have been warned not to feed the trolls. I seem to have someone posting the same incorrect information several times on a thread, the subject of which I am extremely familiar with, despite my factual corrections.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055986938
I understand that I may be feeding a troll, but is there any other way of making other readers aware that a post contains documentably or demonstrably false information than replying every time, like an un-thank button?

humanji

Not sure why this was posted in Conspiracy Theories, but I think this is probably the best place for it (since Help Desk doesn't let others contribute without permission).

Scuid Mhór

if what the poster is saying is wrong and it's doubful he/she is a troll, just call him/her out on it.

kilmuckridge

But I have, more than once.

The reason I posted this in Conspiracy Theories is that there may be a conspiracy (Small but real-world) to protect the protagonist in the other thread, and one user seems so intent on spreading untruths that he posted the same misinformation on the Conspiracy thread relating to this

Scuid Mhór

Giant Squid wrote: »

if what the poster is saying is wrong and it's doubful he/she is a troll, just call him/her out on it.

factually wrong by the way, not subjectively wrong. that's just stupid.

Scuid Mhór

kilmuckridge wrote: »

But I have, more than once.

The reason I posted this in Conspiracy Theories is that there may be a conspiracy (Small but real-world) to protect the protagonist in the other thread, and one user seems so intent on spreading untruths that he posted the same misinformation on the Conspiracy thread relating to this

Keeping in mind that I have no idea of what's going on and I don't care enough to find out, I'd say if he's deliberately spreading information he knows is wrong, just contact someone and tell them to 'shut him down' so to say. If you think he's blindly misinformed and is just preaching what he thinks is right, send him a private message or something to get your attention - maybe he didn't see the messages from people who corrected him in his thread.

Or perhaps he's a hardcore conspiracy nut who's deluded himself into believing his facts are right. Then you can't do much except warn other posters to ignore him.

Tom Dunne

kilmuckridge wrote: »

I understand that I may be feeding a troll, but is there any other way of making other readers aware that a post contains documentably or demonstrably false information than replying every time, like an un-thank button?

My policy has always been make one clear statement of fact as you see it and leave it at that. Knowing when to step back is the key to dealing with people who are intent of disrupting the flow of a thread.

Also, report the post using the little red/white triangle: and let the moderators deal with it.

AckwelFoley

There are a handfull of trolls on boards that are obvious re reg's then with their new found persona go on a mission to fight for the right to be known as boards.ie's #1 arsehole.

Its not big, and its not clever. If you are wondering why nobody likes you and you have no friends to go out with on a friday night - its because you're an angry little man.

It baffeling to me to be honest why people log on to the internet to be agressive toward people, and bait posters into saying something that will get them banned. Trolls will go off, get another pc outlet in an internet cafe and off they go again toget their little high.

In essance OP, what im saying is, if they annoy you by saying something you feel is an attack on you personally or another poster report it, the mods are pretty quick to the mark on this. If they post something that seems to be baiting for abuse, respond with a facts.. trolls dont like facts.. it makes their little brains hurt. Bless

looksee

Looking at the thread, I can't see that he is giving wrong information. He is giving wrong or irrational opinions, but most people are not agreeing with him and he is just providing a basis for discussion, which he is not winning.

I can see and understand your feelings, Kilmuckrage, but if everyone just agreed with each other how terrible it was, the discussion would not have lasted past the first page. And tbh, debating on Boards is not really going to make a great deal of difference, contact with environmental agencies might, but I am not sure you will pick up a lot of concrete interest here. You might do better in the Wexford forum.

kilmuckridge

looksee wrote: »

Looking at the thread, I can't see that he is giving wrong information. He is giving wrong or irrational opinions, but most people are not agreeing with him and he is just providing a basis for discussion, which he is not winning.

I can see and understand your feelings, Kilmuckrage, but if everyone just agreed with each other how terrible it was, the discussion would not have lasted past the first page. And tbh, debating on Boards is not really going to make a great deal of difference, contact with environmental agencies might, but I am not sure you will pick up a lot of concrete interest here. You might do better in the Wexford forum.

Thanks looksee, The frustrating thing is he is sneaking in blatant lies among the irrational opinions, lies about which I have previously set the record straight. I also think the opinion that breaking the law on one's own land (the land in question is not owned, but that's a whole other story) is not something one should get into trouble over a little more serious than irrational.

Mahatma coat

I presume its me you're accusing of being a troll.

Before I get any furthre into this discussion you have accused me of
Telling blatant Lies

Clarify this please, where have I Lied??????

kilmuckridge

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I presume its me you're accusing of being a troll.

Before I get any furthre into this discussion you have accused me of
Telling blatant Lies

Clarify this please, where have I Lied??????

Firstly, you wrote in response to this:

kilmuckridge wrote: »

See story in Irish times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0730/1224275809136.html
and pictures at http://sites.google.com/site/kilmuckridge1/photos/5

This site was the best grey dune habitat in Ireland prior to its bulldozing, but is now several inches to feet deep in places in cattle excrement. The farmer broke countless regulations while authorities not only sat on their hands, but paid higher subsidies due to the large number of cattle held.

You responded with:

Mahatma coat wrote: »

See, this is the important bit.

If you are so concerned about it, I recomend you make the farmer a reasonable offer for the Land, then YOU get to decide what happens to it.

quoting the Irish Times article which stated the farmer owned the land. The Irish Times article was already getting too long for a discussion of the fact that the farmer owns a tiny amount of the land, the rest being a land grab

I corrected you with:

kilmuckridge wrote: »

It makes no difference if he owns it or not. Breaking the law is breaking the law. The purpose of the subsidy he recieved is to keep the land in good agricultural and environmental condition, he has failed to do so.

In fact he owns part of the land, not all of it. It must have been out of the scope of the Irish Times article to cover that aspect. Besides which, if at the end of the day someone is going to make him an offer for the part he owns-it should be the NPWS, not me.

I agree though, that someone with such disregard for this land should not own any of it.

And separately noted that there might be a conspiracy to protect him. You then wrote:

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I think the constitution Protects him, as I said in the other thread He OWNS the land, the govt can make requests and Reward compliance but they cant MAKE him do anything with His Field, if it worries you so much Buy it or convince the government to Buy it

Despite the fact that I had corrected you.

You then wrote:

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the Man is Keeping CATTLE in the field, not Nuclear Feckin Waste, you object to a Farmer keeping Cattle in His field, you do understand what Beef/Dairy farmers do for a living right?

Despite the original post specifying that the cattle were on dunes.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Cattle are in the Mans field, that field happens to be on the edge of the coastline, the cattle are there eating the Grass, but seriously do you really believe that cattle would Sink on a rainy day?????

The above is a blatant lie. You were told it was dune, not a field, and the cattle were turning the area into a pile of cowdung, but you innocently suggest they are eating the grass, like its no problem. It wasn't even grass before it was destroyed. It was fixed dune. You were well aware of this, but that didn't support your position

Tom Dunne

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I presume its me you're accusing of being a troll.

Before I get any furthre into this discussion you have accused me of
Telling blatant Lies

Clarify this please, where have I Lied??????

Guys, Feedback is not the place for this.

I will not warn you again.

demonspawn

I'd like to add that I believe there are a handful of posters on boards that get away with saying whatever they like. There is very clear favoritism on boards, especially on the politics forums. I'm not gonna name names because we all know the parties involved by now.

This should really be investigated to be honest. It's damaging the reputation of boards.ie (if boards actually has a good reputation).

Tom Dunne

demonspawn wrote: »

I'm not gonna name names because we all know the parties involved by now.

Well I certainly don't.

demonspawn wrote: »

This should really be investigated to be honest. It's damaging the reputation of boards.ie (if boards actually has a good reputation).

What needs to be investigated? If there is something that needs looking at, I'm all ears.

Throwing out vague accusations with no evidence to support such claims is not the way to get things sorted.

demonspawn

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Well I certainly don't.

Well ok then. FlutteringBantam (and a couple others) has continuously attacked and insulted posters on the politics forum, has chased posters to other parts of boards just to troll and start fights, and generally made a nuisance of himself. Anyone else who acts like this catches a week long ban after 1 or 2 warnings. New Vision just caught a week ban after one warning on a thread about the Corrib gas project where FB and a couple of others have continuously abused posters and those involved in the protest.

What needs to be investigated? If there is something that needs looking at, I'm all ears.

Conflict of interest. Scofflaw has made it perfectly clear where he stands on various political issues and I believe he goes out of his way to silence people who have differing viewpoints to his own by pointlessly locking threads, deleting posts with no notice of deletion or mod edits, or just straight up banning people for 7 days after one or two warnings for trivial issues. I don't believe he should be a moderator in the politics section.

Throwing out vague accusations with no evidence to support such claims is not the way to get things sorted.

Here's my thread on help desk. I think it explains things pretty well.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056013071

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

Well ok then. FlutteringBantam (and a couple others) has continuously attacked and insulted posters on the politics forum, has chased posters to other parts of boards just to troll and start fights, and generally made a nuisance of himself. Anyone else who acts like this catches a week long ban after 1 or 2 warnings. New Vision just caught a week ban after one warning on a thread about the Corrib gas project where FB and a couple of others have continuously abused posters and those involved in the protest.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056013071

NewVision had 3 warnings when he was banned in that thread, not 1. FlutteringBantam and 'others', and your probably including me in that, have also recieved warnings or infractions in that thread, so don't think your bias claims stand up.

Mahatma coat

kilmuckridge wrote: »

Firstly, you wrote in response to this:



You responded with:


quoting the Irish Times article which stated the farmer owned the land. The Irish Times article was already getting too long for a discussion of the fact that the farmer owns a tiny amount of the land, the rest being a land grab

I corrected you with:


And separately noted that there might be a conspiracy to protect him. You then wrote:



Despite the fact that I had corrected you.

You then wrote:



Despite the original post specifying that the cattle were on dunes.



The above is a blatant lie. You were told it was dune, not a field, and the cattle were turning the area into a pile of cowdung, but you innocently suggest they are eating the grass, like its no problem. It wasn't even grass before it was destroyed. It was fixed dune. You were well aware of this, but that didn't support your position

Hey there mateyboy, I've seen those photo's too, its a field, it may be located ontop of a Sand dune, but I would call it a field. Whatever emotive language you wish to attach to it is tyer own perrogative

The Article said the Farmer OWNS the Field, now pardon me for taking the word of a respected national newspaper with a Fact checking department over some randomer in the Interweb, Just Because you say sdo isnt good enoug evidence for me, the Times article stated that he Owned the field, You have not provided anything that disproves this assertion besides your own assertions.

tis not implausible that you might be the one telling Blatent Lies.

kilmuckridge

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Hey there mateyboy, I've seen those photo's too, its a field, it may be located ontop of a Sand dune, but I would call it a field. Whatever emotive language you wish to attach to it is tyer own perrogative

It may look like a field, but it was dunes that were bulldozed.

Moderator, apologies for the large photos, I have compressed them to 400k each. Some people will not accept directions to evidence

The DUNES prior to bulldozing, in August 2000.


The "Field" of cattle dung in July 2005

Mahatma coat wrote: »

The Article said the Farmer OWNS the Field, now pardon me for taking the word of a respected national newspaper with a Fact checking department over some randomer in the Interweb, Just Because you say sdo isnt good enoug evidence for me, the Times article stated that he Owned the field, You have not provided anything that disproves this assertion besides your own assertions.

tis not implausible that you might be the one telling Blatent Lies.

I have given you directions to evidence, including the Land Registry folio in question, WX16010F, which includes around 10% of the area. The article included errors, however these were not serious enough to warrant a correction/clarification.

For Example:

In March 2004, the Department of Agriculture sent a copy of the Farrelly assessment to the NPWS, asking it to investigate.

The Farrelly report was compiled following an interview on 21st May 2004, so it could not possibly have been sent to the NPWS in March. The Department of Agriculture sent their own report to the NPWS in March, and they commissioned the Farrelly report.

Journalists make mistakes. If it is serious, they issue a correction. Any decent researcher is not afraid to consult the primary material (Which is available from: National Parks and Wildlife Service, Ely Place, Dublin 2)

OldGoat

Are we STILL in the Feedback Forum here?
Thunderdome -->

Tom Dunne

Indeed.

The tragic irony is in the thread title.