A&A Feedback

Hotblack Desiato

I know we're normally tolerant of threads meandering off course in A&A, but he single handedly and deliberately derailed the 'church closures' thread which would otherwise have been interesting. Preventing discussion on a topic he finds uncomfortable.

shruikan2553

Actions against religious people are often brought to the feedback forum where people complain for awhile, admins says its fine and we all move on with life.

It appears that the best course of action is to let them roam about unless they get offensive because the mods can just point to that when there are complaints.

Hotblack Desiato

Huh?

My mother told me the best policy was to ignore bullies, well that was pretty feckin' sh*t advice mam in fairness.

If we want to let good discussions be ruined, then just carry on as we are.

Bannasidhe

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Huh?

My mother told me the best policy was to ignore bullies, well that was pretty feckin' sh*t advice mam in fairness.

If we want to let good discussions be ruined, then just carry on as we are.

Ignore is always an option.

Hotblack Desiato

Not when all the posters you're not ignoring are spending all their time responding to the troll. They've won in that scenario.

Bannasidhe

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Not when all the posters you're not ignoring are spending all their time responding to the troll. They've won in that scenario.

But it's their choice to respond or not to respond.

Hotblack Desiato

Indeed it is, and up to a point it works well.

I'm loath to stifle any opinion here (as I think most of us are) but there does come a point where one poster's right to expression has a detrimental effect on everyone else's right to discussion.

J C is more than welcome to start threads in Christianity espousing his theories, and I'm sure the A&A mods would be willing to tolerate the (very) occasional pointer to his threads in Christianity, so long as it didn't cross the line into trying to convert us...

But what he's doing now is evangelising and derailing legitimate discussion. He's not an RC, we're not either, so this discussion should be on the grounds of architecture and community spaces, ownership of former church lands, that sort of thing, not bolloxology about claiming that his god exists. All such posts are o/t here and should be in the xtian forum.

Bannasidhe

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Indeed it is, and up to a point it works well.

I'm loath to stifle any opinion here (as I think most of us are) but there does come a point where one poster's right to expression has a detrimental effect on everyone else's right to discussion.

J C is more than welcome to start threads in Christianity espousing his theories, and I'm sure the A&A mods would be willing to tolerate the (very) occasional pointer to his threads in Christianity, so long as it didn't cross the line into trying to convert us...

But what he's doing now is evangelising and derailing legitimate discussion. He's not an RC, we're not either, so this discussion should be on the grounds of architecture and community spaces, ownership of former church lands, that sort of thing, not bolloxology about claiming that his god exists. All such posts are o/t here and should be in the xtian forum.

Oh I agree that JC does tend towards the bolloxology but as long as others choose to respond then there isn't a lot the mods can do if he isn't infringing the charter.

I must admit I barely scanned his posts in that particular thread and certainly have no intention of engaging with him there but other posters decided they would engage and therein lies the issue. If the mods were to start deleting everything that wasn't strictly on-topic then surely they would have to do likewise in every other thread and well...biscuits. Also a large waste of mod time for no real gain and contrary to the 'spirit' of A&A.

Let him chatter on I say doesn't mean we have to read it.

Hotblack Desiato

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh I agree that JC does tend towards the bolloxology but as long as others choose to respond then there isn't a lot the mods can do if he isn't infringing the charter.

Soapboxing for Jeebus is against the charter.

3. While posting of controversial questions to stimulate debate is acceptable, soap boxing, i.e constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying, and will not be tolerated. You are expected to contribute something other than placard proclamations.

Let him chatter on I say doesn't mean we have to read it.

We don't, but the intent of trolls is to consume the energy of posters and readers and by so doing, stifle on-topic discussion. Such as, what do we do architecturally and legally with all the soon-to-be-redundant RC churches.

Turtwig

The approach to JC incursions is to merge all relevant posts back into the "origins" megathread.

This is something that requires extensive thread reading, a computer and a fair bit of free time.

So it usually takes a while.

Bannasidhe

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Soapboxing for Jeebus is against the charter.






We don't, but the intent of trolls is to consume the energy of posters and readers and by so doing, stifle on-topic discussion. Such as, what do we do architecturally and legally with all the soon-to-be-redundant RC churches.

I'm sure the mods will deal with JC's rambling when they have time.

My point is, the energy of other posters can only be consumed if they allow it to be consumed - and yes, I have been sucked in on more than one occasion myself - if JC had been simply ignored by all and sundry then the discussion could have continued around him.

Hotblack Desiato

Just as well I avoid that thread :cool:

How does that square with the charter though? Specifically, soapboxing for one's religion.

Turtwig

*all mystical*

The charter works in mysterious ways.
Wooooooo

Ahem, couldn't resist.

JC's opinions are the extreme polar end of the demographic of this forum. It doesn't mean he can't express them. Invariably there's usually a huge reaction to those opinions. Often nit picking on thread irrelevant material. Up to a point, it's not really fair to blame JC or other posters for this. Most of the time the threads, like 90% of a and a discussions, go off topic and we split and merge where necessary - once we have time. Sometimes, the posts get out of hand blatantly crossing the line and mod action ensues.

King Mob

Turtwig wrote: »

The approach to JC incursions is to merge all relevant posts back into the "origins" megathread.

This is something that requires extensive thread reading, a computer and a fair bit of free time.

So it usually takes a while.

But isn't the point of banning people so they don't take up mod's time?
There's tons of threads in Dispute resolution or Prison where people are told that's why they've been banned.

Do people actually believe that JC is genuine in his beliefs?

krudler

King Mob wrote: »

But isn't the point of banning people so they don't take up mod's time?
There's tons of threads in Dispute resolution or Prison where people are told that's why they've been banned.

Do people actually believe that JC is genuine in his beliefs?

No, I was bored today and had a scan through some of his post history. Feel like an idiot now for engaging him, I don't remember encountering him before so figured he was posting under a different name. I dunno how he gets away with it either, it's all waffle and nonsense, question dodging and trolling. If anyone else answered questions the way he does they'd be rightly called on it, and yet he gets away with it, the condescending faux-niceness of his replies is just outright trolling as well.

Peregrinus

Turtwig wrote: »

The approach to JC incursions is to merge all relevant posts back into the "origins" megathread.

This is something that requires extensive thread reading, a computer and a fair bit of free time.

So it usually takes a while.

There might be a less time-consuming alternative. Is this worth considering?

1. JC really only has one theme - "God Exists! Proof!". (OK, two themes - "Bible is literally true!" But park that second one for a minute.)

2. Open a sticky on "Existence of God" or "Arguments for Atheism" or something of the kind. The stated purpose of the sticky is to host arguments about these things so that they don't derail threads on more specific issues (like church closures).

3. If a Mod notices JC posting a "God exists! Proof!" post in a "church closures" thread, or that an intial on-topic post by JC has spiralled in this direction as it usually does, the mod posts a "take this to the sticky" warning. All posters are advised that the place for that discussion is the relevant sticky, that they are not to post about it in this thread, and that they are not to respond to posts about it in this thread. The mods do not themselves merge any posts into the sticky.

4. This has (hopefully) two outcomes. First, it will discourage others from engaging with JC, and hopefully limit his ability to derail threads. Secondly, it provides a basis for disciplinary action against JC (and others) if the derailing attempts persist.

5. Only slight drawback is that if other boardies are provoked into engaging with JC despite the mod warning, they too may have to be disciplined. But as others have pointed out the best way of dealing with a troll is not to feed it, and if the possiblity of disciplining helps people to stick to a resolve not to feed the troll, maybe that's not so bad.

6. As for JC's other theme ("Bible is literally true!") one possibility is a "historicity of scripture" sticky, with the same use of mod warnings to keep the topic out of other threads. The other possiblity is to tell JC to take that over to the Christianity forum, and discipline him if he persists in raising it in off-topic threads here.

Cabaal

Gota say I'm tired of JC's Soapboxing for Jeebus stuff at this stage and I'd agree he did seem to intentionally go into that thread at the very start to de-rail it. Infact I believe I reported his posts at the time sighting as such.

Anyway he now as the honor of being added to my ignore list, he's the first user on boards.ie to be added. Might be no harm for others who are tired of him to do the same as it might force him to eventually improve the quality of his posts and stop the Soapboxing for Jeebus nonsense.

kylith

krudler wrote: »

No, I was bored today and had a scan through some of his post history. Feel like an idiot now for engaging him, I don't remember encountering him before so figured he was posting under a different name. I dunno how he gets away with it either, it's all waffle and nonsense, question dodging and trolling. If anyone else answered questions the way he does they'd be rightly called on it, and yet he gets away with it, the condescending faux-niceness of his replies is just outright trolling as well.

I think it's that it's practically impossible to actually read one of his posts with all the ...... and the nonsense and waffle. No-one really knows what it is he's saying, so they get sucked in.

Cabaal wrote: »

Gota say I'm tired of JC's Soapboxing for Jeebus stuff at this stage and I'd agree he did seem to intentionally go into that thread at the very start to de-rail it. Infact I believe I reported his posts at the time sighting as such.

Anyway he now as the honor of being added to my ignore list, he's the first user on boards.ie to be added. Might be no harm for others who are tired of him to do the same as it might force him to eventually improve the quality of his posts and stop the Soapboxing for Jeebus nonsense.

Will be the first person I've put on ignore too. I can't take the multiple posts that take up half a page and the blathering text walls any more.

Delirium

Good suggestion from Peregrinus.

I don't understand why there has to be an audit of a derailment of a thread by JC with a view to moving it to a JC super-thread.

Put a warning on thread instructing all posters to drop the OT posting. No need to have an additional workload on yourselves (i.e. mods).

King Mob

Why bother with all these special rules to allow a troll to post when it's much simpler to ban him?

Is there anything in particular that JC provides to the forum other than something to take random pot shots at?

Has he ever posted anything worthwhile or anything other than those 2 types of posts Pereginus mentioned?
Has he ever asked a question or raised a point that hasn't been explained to him in excruciating detail by a dozen other posters so he could promptly forget it?
Has he ever engaged in a discussion that resulted in him reconsidering a point or getting anyone to do the same?

Pherekydes

King Mob wrote: »

Is there anything in particular that JC provides to the forum other than something to take random pot shots at?

A good laugh???? Some atheists are known to have...

... a sense of humour!!!!!

robindch

Turtwig wrote: »

The approach to JC incursions is to merge all relevant posts back into the "origins" megathread.

The easier solution is to renew a ruling that held in the past - that JC was asked to post only in the specious nonsense thread.

Debate is good, debate on interesting topics is better, but if a single poster soapboxes a very limited set of views, then the quality of debate does deteriorate.

Mod discussion will ensue and a decision will emerge in due course.

Watch this space.

Cabaal

Pherekydes wrote: »

A good laugh???? Some atheists are known to have...

... a sense of humour!!!!!

abit of a laugh for some users at the expense of numerous threads being derailed?

This isn't after hours,

Pherekydes

Cabaal wrote: »

abit of a laugh for some users at the expense of numerous threads being derailed?

This isn't after hours,

'twas only tongue in cheek, Cabaal.

I'm all for restricting him to a specific thread, or better still, a specific forum, where he can preach to the converted.

Benny_Cake

FWIW, I don't think JC is a troll to the extent that the he sincerely holds the views he expresses here, although some of his posts come off that way. His views are at the extreme end of the spectrum, both here and in Christianity. Once the creationist/existence of God stuff is restricted to the relevant threads, that shouldn't matter as long as the other provisions of the charter are respected.

Incidentally, some people really do seem to enjoy arguing with him. Someone recently took it on themselves to declare victory over him on the creationism megathread in Christianity after a few weeks with no posts on that thread - with predictable consequences. I had been hoping it would drop off the front page

Edit: Just looked at the church closures thread - in that case it seems he is derailing the thread. Entirely up to the mods as to how that should be handled.

Nick Park

To be fair, on this occasion if you look at the Church Closures thread, it wasn't JC who kicked it all off.

Someone had posted a picture of what they referred to as a 'Solar Temple', to which JC responded that things had come full circle if they were back to sun worship. It was quite a witty comment given that the Roman Catholic Church developed by appropriating so much of the ritual and and ceremony of sun worship.

Then another poster responded to his 'full circle' post by making a snarky remark about evidence for the sun and the lack of evidence for JC's beliefs. That was the post that began the derailment (and a number of those who are now whinging about the thread being derailed actually thanked the post in question).

I disagree with JC on a lot of stuff. But I admire his ability to keep on responding politely in the face of a lot of vitriol and nastiness.

Genghiz Cohen

King Mob wrote: »

But isn't the point of banning people so they don't take up mod's time?
There's tons of threads in Dispute resolution or Prison where people are told that's why they've been banned.

Do people actually believe that JC is genuine in his beliefs?

I've made a graph to show the phenomenon.

Cabaal

By his third post approx 1hour later he had already started his Soapboxing for Jeebus nonsense, dragging the thread off topic

I also have direct evidence for God ... and without Him there would be neither a Sun nor life nor an Earth.

I'll see your Sun ... and raise you the Earth and all life.

and then proceeded to effectively troll looking for a reaction by saying

You're correct that it could ruin your faith in Atheism allright!!!

His ultimate aim appears to have been to drag the the thread off topic by making posts that he knew were off topic but would likely get a reaction, he does not appear interested in adding to it in any meaningful way

Benny_Cake

Nick Park wrote: »

I disagree with JC on a lot of stuff. But I admire his ability to keep on responding politely in the face of a lot of vitriol and nastiness.

I've found that if you can get him onto topics other than creationism (which doesn't happen often enough) JC often has very good points to make. I don't recall ever having had to pull him up for abusing other posters either. Probably only fair to point that out.

Peregrinus

Nick's point is valid though. Perhaps others were trailing their coats, and pushing buttons that they knew JC would respond to?

But (modest "ahem") the beauty of the approach I suggest in post #737 is that it doesn't matter "who started it". If there is a sticky for discussion of tired old chestnuts so that they don't derail discussion of more varied topics, mods can stomp on the tired old chestnuts whenever they emerge, and regardless of who brought them up.