A General Feedback thread

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

Suggestion: posters perma-banned from AH should automatically be banned from politics. Just do some cross referencing. It's like expecting people to walk when they couldn't demonstrate their ability to even crawl and then wondering why they are in politics thrashing about on the ground.

Unfortunately, there's no easy way to make that happen. I will say that when a poster comes to our attention in Politics, we do take account of other bans, and an AH ban would be particularly noticeable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So we should ban every FFer in the place because they don't go into threads ready to admit that FF has any merits whatsoever?

Your definition of trolling is far too broad, it would catch far too many people in its net if applied across the forum, which it would have to be.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sand

In terms of weeding out low quality threads if the thread title or the bulk of the OP is a question then it should be locked. Theyre almost always low quality threads or trolling: "I didnt say you beat your wife, I asked you if you beat your wife" type stuff.

Currently on the front page I see 5 topics where the title/op is framed as a question.

The first thread is locked with the OP banned for trolling.

The second is another poorly disguised troll where the discussion has already diverted onto the inflamatory nature of the thread title itself, rather than the alleged topic.

The third is the same old "I'm going to start a political party" stuff which comes up every few weeks before vanishing without a trace.

The fourth is a constitutional query that google could have resolved.

The fifth has actually generated some serious activity but its no thanks to the OPs two lines, which offered no opinion. The thread itself is discussing the same issue that was already being discussed in another large thread.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How do you separate your definition from someone who simply wants to attack a political position (be that party or ideology) because they neither share it nor respect it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Proving the intent is the problem. It's easy to assign intent but it's very difficult to be sure about it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I can't answer for nesf, but personally I'd largely agree with your definition of trolling.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Soldie

nesf wrote: »

And my point is that I could ban an awful lot of people for such "trolling" simply because they have a serious problem with some political position and don't keep quiet about it when given the opportunity to attack. For instance if I ban people for being glib and goading on a libertarian thread, I'm going to have to turn around and ban a whole heap of libertarians for the same behaviour on socialism threads.

I really don't want to have to do this. I'd hate to have to ban someone for just being passionately opposed to some position.

The "troll" wants to pick a fight with libertarians because they have a serious problem with the ideology. This just happens. If he starts derailing threads by turning them into fights about libertarianism then yes we'll step in but setting up a thread which begins with an attack on the ideology leaves no one in any doubt as to what the thread is going to be like so as far as I'm concerned anyone choosing to post in it implicitly accepts that their ideology is going to be attacked in a whole array of ways and that posts in it will probably be goading and annoying for them.

Again, I'm not saying that every instance of goading should be met with a ban. I'm really not saying that, at all. I'm pointing out that the user's posting history coupled with the thread in question clearly show that he is a troll. I'm not Nostradamus, and yet I knew exactly how the thread would turn out. He's being entirely disingenuous, which is different to simply goading. Just look at this post which the same user made a matter of days before starting the thread. It's of no surprise to me whatsoever to see how the thread panned out. If you look at the thread you'll find that it's clear even from the original post that he has no interest in a reasoned and genuine discussion, and has instead set the stage for people to take his bait so he can attack them. He then intermittently stokes the fire by tossing about ridiculous straw men left, right and centre. The more seasoned posters have wisely steered clear of the thread, while some of the forum's newer members have unfortunately, but entirely predictably, attempted to participate in good faith (although, again, plenty of their posts impacted upon the thread negatively, too). Your response is to shrug your shoulders and say that it was obvious what the poster's intentions are, but my question to you is why such a thread is even allowed in the first place? What of those of us who wish to discuss libertarianism in a more mature manner? Why should I even bother starting a thread on it if I know that the mods will not help to create a civilized environment in which it can be discussed? Moreover, why do you think the thread developed into such a train wreck, and what do you think can be done to stop it from happening? What you're doing here is privileging soap boxing over actual discussion.

Scofflaw

Soldie wrote: »

Again, I'm not saying that every instance of goading should be met with a ban. I'm really not saying that, at all. I'm pointing out that the user's posting history coupled with the thread in question clearly show that he is a troll. I'm not Nostradamus, and yet I knew exactly how the thread would turn out. He's being entirely disingenuous, which is different to simply goading. Just look at this post which the same user made a matter of days before starting the thread. It's of no surprise to me whatsoever to see how the thread panned out. If you look at the thread you'll find that it's clear even from the original post that he has no interest in a reasoned and genuine discussion, and has instead set the stage for people to take his bait so he can attack them. He then intermittently stokes the fire by tossing about ridiculous straw men left, right and centre. The more seasoned posters have wisely steered clear of the thread, while some of the forum's newer members have unfortunately, but entirely predictably, attempted to participate in good faith (although, again, plenty of their posts impacted upon the thread negatively, too). Your response is to shrug your shoulders and say that it was obvious what the poster's intentions are, but my question to you is why such a thread is even allowed in the first place? What of those of us who wish to discuss libertarianism in a more mature manner? Why should I even bother starting a thread on it if I know that the mods will not help to create a civilized environment in which it can be discussed? Moreover, why do you think the thread developed into such a train wreck, and what do you think can be done to stop it from happening? What you're doing here is privileging soap boxing over actual discussion.

But as you point out there, the OP then steered clear of the thread. How does that constitute trolling on their part? They had their say, they set up a debate, and all your complaints revolve around the fact that they had also made their opinions clearly known elsewhere. Is one allowed only to comment once on someone else's position?

If some of you want to "discuss libertarianism in a more mature manner", then it seems rather obvious that such a thread is not going to be the place to do it. There's nothing stopping any of you setting up a thread to discuss possible libertarian solutions to an issue, and using the OP to make it clear that it's a discussion between libertarians rather than about libertarianism. I would have no issues chucking people off such a thread if they wanted to use it to attack libertarianism, but the idea of chucking people off a thread attacking libertarianism because they're attacking libertarianism is self-evidently silly. I won't go into why it was a trainwreck, but I will say that pointing to it as if it was something that happened to poor innocent libertarian posters doesn't wash.

As for "allowing such a thread in the first place" - we allow all kinds of attack threads. Heck, politics forums run on them. The place would be pretty empty if all we allowed were threads saying how great the government was, and those nice people at the EU and the US and the IMF and NATO and China, and what a marvellous system we were all living in, and how everything was undeniably for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

If you want to discuss amongst yourselves how libertarianism can best solve things, work away. Largely, though, you don't appear to want to do that - you want to tell everyone else how libertarianism would solve things. That's entirely fine and entirely normal for social/economic/political ideologues, but it does mean that the claim of wanting to "discuss libertarianism in a more mature manner" rings a little hollow, because it looks like what it means is "deliver the libertarian message to the uneducated with less backchat" - and that isn't something that's going to happen for you, really, any more than it does for any other political persuasion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Soldie

Scofflaw wrote: »

But as you point out there, the OP then steered clear of the thread. How does that constitute trolling on their part? They had their say, they set up a debate, and all your complaints revolve around the fact that they had also made their opinions clearly known elsewhere. Is one allowed only to comment once on someone else's position?

If some of you want to "discuss libertarianism in a more mature manner", then it seems rather obvious that such a thread is not going to be the place to do it. There's nothing stopping any of you setting up a thread to discuss possible libertarian solutions to an issue, and using the OP to make it clear that it's a discussion between libertarians rather than about libertarianism. I would have no issues chucking people off such a thread if they wanted to use it to attack libertarianism, but the idea of chucking people off a thread attacking libertarianism because they're attacking libertarianism is self-evidently silly. I won't go into why it was a trainwreck, but I will say that pointing to it as if it was something that happened to poor innocent libertarian posters doesn't wash.

As for "allowing such a thread in the first place" - we allow all kinds of attack threads. Heck, politics forums run on them. The place would be pretty empty if all we allowed were threads saying how great the government was, and those nice people at the EU and the US and the IMF and NATO and China, and what a marvellous system we were all living in, and how everything was undeniably for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

If you want to discuss amongst yourselves how libertarianism can best solve things, work away. Largely, though, you don't appear to want to do that - you want to tell everyone else how libertarianism would solve things. That's entirely fine and entirely normal for social/economic/political ideologues, but it does mean that the claim of wanting to "discuss libertarianism in a more mature manner" rings a little hollow, because it looks like what it means is "deliver the libertarian message to the uneducated with less backchat" - and that isn't something that's going to happen for you, really, any more than it does for any other political persuasion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm not interested in a thread in which only libertarians participate, nor am I interested "delivering the libertarian message to the uneducated with less backchat". I also didn't say that the thread in question is something that "happened to poor innocent libertarian posters". All of those misrepresentations aside, I can simply say that I am interested in genuine discussion in which the participants of the discussion are actually interested in discussing. I really can't be any more clear about that, frankly.

Since you "largely agree" with Permabear's definition of trolling would you then agree that the poster in question was in fact trolling and if not, why? I'd also be interested in hearing why you think the thread turned into a train wreck.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We can't prove it but we have to be able to stand over it if it's contested by a user in Dispute Resolutions. Insofar of that it means trolling has to clear enough that a CMod or Admin without a lot of experience in the forum has to be able to look at it and agree. This puts strong constraints on what we can call trolling and when we can ban for it.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

My problem initially with your definition of trolling was that it appeared to not include intent as part of the requirement. I've less problems with your stated definition, other than I'd include masquerading as having a controversial opinion as part of it.

nesf

Soldie wrote: »

I'd also be interested in hearing why you think the thread turned into a train wreck.

It is the experience of this forum that threads turn into pitched battle train wrecks without anyone trolling in it. Just requires two groups of posters sufficiently far apart ideologically wise.

Scofflaw

Soldie wrote: »

I'm not interested in a thread in which only libertarians participate, nor am I interested "delivering the libertarian message to the uneducated with less backchat". I also didn't say that the thread in question is something that "happened to poor innocent libertarian posters". All of those misrepresentations aside,

I didn't say you said those things - I said they were how it appeared to me.

Soldie wrote: »

I can simply say that I am interested in genuine discussion in which the participants of the discussion are actually interested in discussing. I really can't be any more clear about that, frankly.

I don't think we can force people who don't share your opinion to engage on the premise that their level of engagement needs to be acceptable to the libertarian side of the discussion. I know, I know, that wasn't what you said - but it's what's basically involved.

Soldie wrote: »

Since you "largely agree" with Permabear's definition of trolling would you then agree that the poster in question was in fact trolling and if not, why? I'd also be interested in hearing why you think the thread turned into a train wreck.

See nesf's point. I'd add that neither side in the thread was really interested in changing their views. Again, that has a bearing on how posters of any strong ideological persuasion engage on the forum - your opponents aren't going to change their stance, but neither are any of the libertarians. Where there are deeply held beliefs as to the undesirability of the opposing viewpoint - and there are - that's going to result in exactly the same trench warfare as we see in Israel debates, NI debates, and other contentious topics.

So, at least from my perspective, all that I can say is that - exactly as per the discussions we've had with nationalists / unionists / zionists / pro-palestinians - what can be done is to moderate those discussions, and to try to stop them turning into trainwrecks, weed out the trolls etc. And what can be done will be done. But, as with all other ideological discussions, I'll make my own judgement about who is trolling and who isn't, because I find that the strongly ideological of every persuasion are rather less than entirely objective in theirs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

There was (what I think was) a tongue-in-cheek post earlier in this thread re the implicit contradiction in libertarians discussing moderation and even reporting posts.

While I overlooked it at the time, I'm posting it here as a "test", if you like - do the mods view questions / comments on the apparent contradiction as a valid observation/question, or do the libertarians view this post as "trolling" ?

Soldie

Scofflaw wrote: »

See nesf's point. I'd add that neither side in the thread was really interested in changing their views. Again, that has a bearing on how posters of any strong ideological persuasion engage on the forum - your opponents aren't going to change their stance, but neither are any of the libertarians. Where there are deeply held beliefs as to the undesirability of the opposing viewpoint - and there are - that's going to result in exactly the same trench warfare as we see in Israel debates, NI debates, and other contentious topics.

I'd absolutely agree that both sides in the thread in question were at fault - it was a veritable train wreck by all accounts. Having said that, I'd ascribe more blame to the person who - to my mind, at least - was deliberately provoking other users. I'm genuinely at a loss to understand how it's not clear to all that this is what the user in question was doing, but I suppose that's somewhere where we'll just have to agree to disagree. For what it's worth, the only reason I've repeatedly referenced that thread is because it's one I am familiar with. I have little interest in seeing the user infracted; I'm more worried about future threads taking the same route.

So, at least from my perspective, all that I can say is that - exactly as per the discussions we've had with nationalists / unionists / zionists / pro-palestinians - what can be done is to moderate those discussions, and to try to stop them turning into trainwrecks, weed out the trolls etc. And what can be done will be done. But, as with all other ideological discussions, I'll make my own judgement about who is trolling and who isn't, because I find that the strongly ideological of every persuasion are rather less than entirely objective in theirs.

While it's certainly true that the odd ideologue is going to be somewhat lacking in objectivity when it comes to matters close to their heart, it is not true that every ideologue is automatically entirely unobjective when it comes to matters close to their heart. Given your posting habits, you're probably quite familiar with the Euroskeptic and anti-Green posters, and those who believe there to be a pot of gold off the coast of Mayo. This is probably because you're interested in those subjects, not necessarily because you have strong opinions on them.

Liam Byrne wrote:

There was (what I think was) a tongue-in-cheek post earlier in this thread re the implicit contradiction in libertarians discussing moderation and even reporting posts.

While I overlooked it at the time, I'm posting it here as a "test", if you like - do the mods view questions / comments on the apparent contradiction as a valid observation/question, or do the libertarians view this post as "trolling" ?

Given that I don't believe you to be a troll, I'd consider it to be nothing more than gross ignorance of what libertarianism is/means.

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There was (what I think was) a tongue-in-cheek post earlier in this thread re the implicit contradiction in libertarians discussing moderation and even reporting posts.

While I overlooked it at the time, I'm posting it here as a "test", if you like - do the mods view questions / comments on the apparent contradiction as a valid observation/question, or do the libertarians view this post as "trolling" ?

You're taking a swipe at Libertarians but you're not doing so just to annoy them so I wouldn't sanction you for it. Similar to why I don't sanction you whenever you take a swipe at FF.

nesf

Soldie wrote: »

I have little interest in seeing the user infracted; I'm more worried about future threads taking the same route.

One thing we do do with these kinds of threads is keep an eye out for people always stuck in the middle of them. Though we haven't gone so far as to ban anyone for this yet it is something we're debating. It's NI and Palestine threads being examined for the most part because of the volume of traffic they generate and how bad they get within a page or two regardless of how innocuous the initial topic was.

If we find certain pro and anti libertarians always in the middle of train wreak threads we may take action. Nothing has been decided about this yet, but we do recognise it as a problem that needs a solution.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

One thing we do do with these kinds of threads is keep an eye out for people always stuck in the middle of them. Though we haven't gone so far as to ban anyone for this yet it is something we're debating. It's NI and Palestine threads being examined for the most part because of the volume of traffic they generate and how bad they get within a page or two regardless of how innocuous the initial topic was.

If we find certain pro and anti libertarians always in the middle of train wreak threads we may take action. Nothing has been decided about this yet, but we do recognise it as a problem that needs a solution.

Actually, we have banned a poster for it - it wasn't ideological in his case, though, he was just always to be found in the middle of trainwreck threads. Involved about 3 days worth of dispute afterwards, which was almost a trainwreck in itself.

In this case, it's kind of bizarre to accuse the OP of the "j'accuse" thread of being in the middle of the trainwreck it became, since, as far as I can see, he didn't post again on the thread at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Soldie wrote: »

I'd absolutely agree that both sides in the thread in question were at fault - it was a veritable train wreck by all accounts. Having said that, I'd ascribe more blame to the person who - to my mind, at least - was deliberately provoking other users. I'm genuinely at a loss to understand how it's not clear to all that this is what the user in question was doing, but I suppose that's somewhere where we'll just have to agree to disagree. For what it's worth, the only reason I've repeatedly referenced that thread is because it's one I am familiar with. I have little interest in seeing the user infracted; I'm more worried about future threads taking the same route.

As said, it's a little odd to ascribe the issue to the OP, who made a single post.

Soldie wrote: »

While it's certainly true that the odd ideologue is going to be somewhat lacking in objectivity when it comes to matters close to their heart, it is not true that every ideologue is automatically entirely unobjective when it comes to matters close to their heart. Given your posting habits, you're probably quite familiar with the Euroskeptic and anti-Green posters, and those who believe there to be a pot of gold off the coast of Mayo. This is probably because you're interested in those subjects, not necessarily because you have strong opinions on them.

I'm particularly careful when dealing with eurosceptical and anti-green posters specifically because I'm aware of my ideological leanings there.

Soldie wrote: »

Given that I don't believe you to be a troll, I'd consider it to be nothing more than gross ignorance of what libertarianism is/means.

And would you consider "gross ignorance" as a slightly insulting response?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Soldie

Scofflaw wrote: »

As said, it's a little odd to ascribe the issue to the OP, who made a single post.

The user in question made 102 contributions to the thread. It is this thread I have been talking about. See this post, for instance, which to me is blatant trolling.

And would you consider "gross ignorance" as a slightly insulting response?

Hopefully it's not perceived as such. I mean gross ignorance in the sense that it's pretty much entirely ignorant of what libertarianism is or means at a fundamental level; libertarianism is not an aversion to all rules.

Scofflaw

Soldie wrote: »

The user in question made 102 contributions to the thread. It is this thread I have been talking about.

Oops - looking at the wrong thread! Beg pardon...

Soldie wrote: »

See this post, for instance, which to me is blatant trolling.

You genuinely honestly consider that post "blatant trolling"?

Soldie wrote: »

Hopefully it's not perceived as such. I mean gross ignorance in the sense that it's pretty much entirely ignorant of what libertarianism is or means at a fundamental level; libertarianism is not an aversion to all rules.

Or it could be a mildly funny dig by someone who appreciates those things - humour is not usually doctrinally accurate. It's the sort of thing that also gets said to anarchists, where it is equally inaccurate and equally a mildly funny dig.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Soldie

Scofflaw wrote: »

You genuinely honestly consider that post "blatant trolling"?

In the context of the thread, very much so, yes, with a hefty dose of soap boxing thrown in, too. Do you really think he's interested in generating a real discussion with that clumsy and provocative tirade?

nesf

Soldie wrote: »

In the context of the thread, very much so, yes, with a hefty dose of soap boxing thrown in, too. Do you really think he's interested in generating a real discussion with that clumsy and provocative tirade?

Not generating a real discussion is not the same as trolling. And a tirade of that type is not banned from this forum and neither is it uncommon. Have a good read of a FF thread for plenty of examples of this kind of posting. It's pure "listen to my voice" stuff but it is not against the rules.

Scofflaw

Soldie wrote: »

In the context of the thread, very much so, yes, with a hefty dose of soap boxing thrown in, too. Do you really think he's interested in generating a real discussion with that clumsy and provocative tirade?

I imagine he's saying why he thinks a libertarian society would be terrible - and he obviously does think a libertarian society would be terrible, for reasons that presumably are akin to what's in his post. He may be exaggerating for dramatic effect, or he may simply see the things he mentions being the likely outcomes of a libertarian society. He dislikes libertarianism, and one can reasonably assume he dislikes it because he thinks it leads to terrible outcomes.

What do libertarians say about communist societies? Do they say "well, they'd be mostly OK, but things could be done better our way"? No. Do libertarians even say that about social democracies? No, they're prone to describing them in rather Nietzchian terms instead. So why would it be trolling for someone to paint an equally bleak picture of a libertarian society?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Of all his posts to pick on, I wouldn't call that one trolling

FreudianSlippers

Trolling needs to have key elements IMO and it is often used incorrectly on boards (rarely in politics though I find).

Firstly, the troll post should be inflammatory; secondly the intent of that post is to invoke an emotional and off-topic response.
IMO if the post is generally in line with the thread, then it becomes more difficult and it must be considered whether the poster is actually intending on contributing; or alternatively are they just repeating the same basic point which is invoking anger or emotional posting by the other(s).

If a poster is just trying to "push buttons" then that's trolling too. If they genuinely believe in what they are posting then there shouldn't be a problem.
If someone is infracted/banned for posting something completely on-topic but controversial; IMO that is poor, poor modding.

Lockstep

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As those who are not libertarian?

Setting up threads to argue with libertarians isn't trolling.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Welcome to our world. We have to be able to back up and justify any ban. This makes banning for low level trolling extremely tricky. ISAW wasn't that hard because he derails any thread he gets himself into, including his dispute resolution threads. I'm not even convinced that ISAW was a troll but I am 100% convinced that the forum is better off without him and am willing to stand behind that.

You want us to ban, sure. But please appreciate that we can't ban for trolling until we are sure enough of it that we'll put our necks out over it. Too many overturned bans and our position as a mod starts to get questioned etc (and rightly so).

Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Trolling needs to have key elements IMO and it is often used incorrectly on boards (rarely in politics though I find).

Firstly, the troll post should be inflammatory; secondly the intent of that post is to invoke an emotional and off-topic response.
IMO if the post is generally in line with the thread, then it becomes more difficult and it must be considered whether the poster is actually intending on contributing; or alternatively are they just repeating the same basic point which is invoking anger or emotional posting by the other(s).

If a poster is just trying to "push buttons" then that's trolling too. If they genuinely believe in what they are posting then there shouldn't be a problem.
If someone is infracted/banned for posting something completely on-topic but controversial; IMO that is poor, poor modding.

Even in the case of those who genuinely believe what they're saying, there's a limit. In particular, we tend to draw a line at those who are fact-resistant - that is, can go through an entire thread espousing a factually unproven or disproven position and stonewalling or evading all attempts to show them that their case is unsupported/contradicted by the facts. Unfortunately, even those cases almost invariably cause disputes (there's one in DRP as we speak), and to draw a similar line on ideologies would be next to impossible. Despite the claims of their adherents, there is no ideology which is preferentially supported by objective facts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers

Scofflaw wrote: »

Even in the case of those who genuinely believe what they're saying, there's a limit. In particular, we tend to draw a line at those who are fact-resistant - that is, can go through an entire thread espousing a factually unproven or disproven position and stonewalling or evading all attempts to show them that their case is unsupported/contradicted by the facts. Unfortunately, even those cases almost invariably cause disputes (there's one in DRP as we speak), and to draw a similar line on ideologies would be next to impossible. Despite the claims of their adherents, there is no ideology which is preferentially supported by objective facts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Agreed 100%

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And - taking your contention on board for the sake of argument - why do you think he does it? And are all libertarians minarchists?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes. Are you asking for us to penalise them too?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But the ideal in all cases is to reduce government interference to a minimum, and there's disagreement over the minimum? And some libertarians would espouse a minimum that would be consonant with anarchism?

In fact, I see that Wikipedia lists Anarchism as part of a "series on Libertarianism", which surprises me somewhat.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Can it not be construed as simple hyperbole though? The kind that is extremely common in political debate?

Setting aside of course the idiots who think universal healthcare is a form of communism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's complicated. Someone is entitled to hold nonsensical views within certain conditions.

e.g. The whole Barack Obama is a communist thing is a lot more straightforward than say, all forms of communism inevitably lead to totalitarianism or all forms of libertarianism lead to anarchy if fully applied. In the latter two we're talking about theoretical viewpoints rather than matters of fact and are much more complex to police.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm setting it aside because I think they're ideological idiots and there's not much that can be done for them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We would deal it with it to the extent that it's factual. For example, someone is entitled to the view that same-sex marriage is wrong. They're not entitled to claim that it has been conclusively demonstrated that it's bad for kids, because it hasn't been.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, libertarians call him a troll. The problem is that there are no facts involved. If the poster holds the view that the kind of minimal government espoused by libertarians would lead to a lawless society, there are no facts to prove him wrong. You believe he's wrong, obviously, but then he probably believes he's right.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sure - because 'argument to the contrary' is just that, argument. Again, it isn't a question of facts, but of someone holding a silly opinion - and, to be fair, only an extreme of a relatively common right-wing viewpoint.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

People routinely ignore facts when it comes to their political views. If they start claiming facts we'll step in but we're not going to censure someone for holding a particular view. i.e. the difference between "I think the best place for a child is between a loving father and mother" and "Raising a child in a hetrosexual family is best for children". One is a view, the other is a statement of fact.

Permabear wrote: »

In this case, the poster in question repeatedly claims that libertarians wish to bring about a society that would resemble lawless Somali warlordism. When confronted with reasoned argument, with references and quotations from libertarian philosophy, he disregards all counterargument and goes back to repeating his claim. That is why people call him a troll.

Eh, a reasoned argument with references and quotations is just a mere argument it is not a statement of fact. The problem here, as with most theoretical political arguments, is that they consist of opinions not facts and as such are not like a debate about facts and can't be moderated as such.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Depends on whether you are stating an opinion or claiming a fact. We'll intervene if it's the latter.

Scofflaw

So are you saying that if someone were to come on to the forum and insist in the face of all argument to the contrary that universal healthcare is communism, the mods are fine with that?

Depends on whether you are stating an opinion or claiming a fact. We'll intervene if it's the latter.

How could "universal healthcare is communism" ever be regarded as a factual question, though?

slightly perplexed,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

How could "universal healthcare is communism" ever be regarded as a factual question, though?

slightly perplexed,
Scofflaw

I'm pretty sure someone could construe it that way if they were trolling.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

I'm pretty sure someone could construe it that way if they were trolling.

Not sure - I mean, they could say that it was a fact, but that doesn't mean it is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not sure - I mean, they could say that it was a fact, but that doesn't mean it is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

True.