Tedious poster killing discussion

looksee

I have complained about and reported a poster in Atheism and Agnosticism numerous time, to no avail. He has chased away a good number of posters over the last couple of years by his tedious, nitpicking style of posting which is solely designed to bore or exasperate people into not bothering to post. I read the forum but do not very often post in it now because it is pointless.

I know of one person last year (I was in contact with them outside of Boards), who abandoned A&A, and subsequently Boards because she was exasperated trying to debate with him. Now, this evening another poster has thrown in the towel and closed his account because of the unrelenting 'if you don't like it you can leave' and 'its a Catholic country for Catholics' attitude, and the ongoing specious and circular arguments of the leader of the pack.

And I have no doubt that the people involved, and the one in particular, will say YES! - another atheist beaten!

Argument, debate and discussion are good, and there would be no point in having a forum where people only agreed with one another - an echo chamber. But when the extent of discussion is simply 'leave', or rambling circular and irrelevant nonsense designed to irritate people, while repeating the same mantra over and over with no attempt at rational argument, then the exercise becomes pointless.

If Politics had people soapboxing 'if you don't like (insert current government here) policies you can always emigrate, endlessly, there would be sanctions.

From being a fairly active and lively forum, it is now pretty much dead. I doubt that there would be any point in sanctions at this stage, the damage is done.

i dont wish to hijack the specific thread but the indulgence of exactly the type of obstructive posting described in the OP is hugely damaging to the site imo. mod actions only ever seem to focus on reaction to it and never address it as a cause, but it permeates almost every long thread ive read on the site at this stage.

Chips Lovell

It's a common enough debating tactic, trying to bludgeon your opponent into submission by posting walls of text and responding with line-by-line rebuttals of every response. They're banking on people running out of time and patience, at which point they can declare victory by default.

I don't think it's really actionable. People like that should just be ignored if they start to get tedious. If more posters stopped responding to them, they wouldn't clutter up so many threads.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

looksee

A&A has a very laissez faire approach, in that anything other than outright abuse is pretty much permitted. This leads to excellent discussion. It also means that the 'religious' point of view can be expressed far more openly than in comparable situations on the basis that atheists are well able to look after themselves, this is also good, there can be some vigorous discussion. However this individual's posting style kills discussion stone dead.

Most people who have been around a while do ignore him, but newcomers take him on and they get bored and walk away fairly quickly, so the forum has no chance of growing.

LoLth

it shouldnt have to be the best option but there is an ignore function.

if the poster has a history of not engaging but instead derails with nitpicking distractions, then put them on ignore and the distractions are (almost) gone. - I say almost because newbies how have not yet learned and quoted posts will still provide some degree of recognition.

if they are a big enough PITA then they will eventually get tired of not being responded to and ...how to put this politely... piss off back to their echo chambers once their ego can no longer get its fix of "putting an opponent in their place by showing the world how they are not perfect".

We've had discussion before where the risk of echo chambers in forums is a recognised concern. Its not a discussion if everyone says "me too!". However, I would find the other end of the spectrum equally off putting. Where every point must be perfect and ironclad or the entire sentiment of a post or opinion of a poster is completely disregarded. its an inhospitable atmosphere and its off putting to new posters who only have their faults pointed out to them before being dismissed as not yet knowledgeable enough to take part in the conversation.

Report instances that you see and , even if it is not strictly against the rules, once a pattern emerges then a word can be had. As posted already, this has been done before and has resulted in site bans for users that refused to modify their method of interaction with other posters. If the mods have not taken action, then maybe they have not seen it as a pattern yet. Thanks for highlighting it. I'll take a look.

Any feedback on what degree of nitpickery is allowable? when does opinion become a soapbox? At what point does staunch defence of belief become deliberate attempt to stifle discussion?is a demand for proof always acceptable? is anecdotal "evidence" ever acceptable in an discussion or must all statements be cited? At what stage should mods decide there's a pattern? if I join a discussion and leave because I don't like a poster, is that enough for that poster to be warned? what if five of my friends do the same thing? its a thin line between shutting down a poster to open up discussion and shutting down a poster to move toward the forum equivalent of a circle of nodding dogs.

If, as you say, the mods have not yet taken action in this instance, maybe they are not yet sure what action is required or even if action is required. Its a tough call to make without making it difficult to defend against calls of bias (which has happened in recent history).

looksee

I have just looked at some other threads on this forum and it appears that this might not be considered Feedback, rather Help Desk, I am not quite clear where the dividing line is. If this is in the wrong forum could it be moved please?

yoppy

After hours use to be unmmissable for me, everyday without fail I'd check it but for the last 15 months it's rape this, misogyny that, racism blah, creeping into every thread it felt like.

How could ya be looking at it. Even that thread about knowing it was time to bail out of a relationship has someone posting that crap every 25 posts or so. Though it's a wonder for once it didn't disintegrate.

Only people to blame are named down the bottom right of the forum's main page.

Chips Lovell

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd kind of see soapboxing as someone who insists on shoehorning their pet theories into every thread they participate in and/or ignoring any responses and rebuttals.

LoLth

short answer: I think it falls under the "dont be a dick" rule.

LoLth

yoppy wrote: »

After hours use to be unmmissable for me, everyday without fail I'd check it but for the last 15 months it's rape this, misogyny that, racism blah, creeping into every thread it felt like.

How could ya be looking at it. Even that thread about knowing it was time to bail out of a relationship has someone posting that crap every 25 posts or so. Though it's a wonder for once it didn't disintegrate.

Only people to blame are named down the bottom right of the forum's main page.

Thats a bit unfair. You expect a handful of mods to control the posting of every user? it can be done sure, but then itd be mod heavy handedness and restriction of expression of opinion or bias toward one side or another.

Ok, so lets assume there is a lot of talk about the inferiority of a gender in a pub. is that the fault of the landlord or the clientele? Now, if the pub is a strip club and has posters and signs promoting this opinion put up by the landlord then you could say that the management has set the tone for the content, but unless mods are deleting non-gender-inferiority posts as being off topic then perhaps the state of AH says more about the mindset of the specific posters than those trying to ensure discussion remains civil and fair to all users.

Do you challenge any of the opinions expressed in the posts you don't like? Do you report the posts that you feel are excessive or are indicative of a hidden agenda by a poster or group of posters?

I get that the moderation team have a lot of influence on the tone and flow of a forum but to hold them solely responsible for an increase in posts that contain material you find offensive and absolve the posters themselves of all responsibility is not right.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Peregrine

LoLth wrote: »

Report instances that you see and , even if it is not strictly against the rules, once a pattern emerges then a word can be had. As posted already, this has been done before and has resulted in site bans for users that refused to modify their method of interaction with other posters. If the mods have not taken action, then maybe they have not seen it as a pattern yet. Thanks for highlighting it. I'll take a look.

..

If, as you say, the mods have not yet taken action in this instance, maybe they are not yet sure what action is required or even if action is required. Its a tough call to make without making it difficult to defend against calls of bias (which has happened in recent history).

I've reported a post that was strictly against the rules and it was quite clear what sort of action was required. A few months ago, I saw a post that was already dealt with when I saw. It, too, was quite clearly against the rules.

Both of those times, the moderator action amounted to a 'slap on the wrist'. When you've got troublesome posters with a clear pattern of posting, the slaps on the wrist and refusal to impose any sort of meaningful reprimand left a lot to be desired.

Can such instances be brought up here specifically?

looksee wrote: »

A&A has a very laissez faire approach

I think it's gone beyond that to 'anything goes'. I don't want an echo chamber or anything close to the protected Christianity forum. I just want the charter upheld and repetitively abusive posters removed.

LoLth

Peregrine wrote: »

Can such instances be brought up here specifically?

I would prefer if you did not. Not for any mod based reason but because it opens the door for attacking posters by having a form of trial by popular opinion take place.

I think it's gone beyond that to 'anything goes'. I don't want an echo chamber or anything close to the protected Christianity forum. I just want the charter upheld and repetitively abusive posters removed.

Perhaps we can move away from the specific to the general. How should boards deal with Tedious posters? not necessarily just the trolling soapboxer but also the poster that only posts "me too" and the poster that only posts news articles they have read elsewhere but never an actual opinion of their own.

What is a tedious poster? what is a good poster? is someone who "proves" every statement with a link to an article a better poster than someone who ties themselves in knots justifying a contrary opinion? Honestly, I have my own opinion on what makes a good poster, I'd be interested in reading some feedback on how mods and users see the distinction.

As I said, I (and by "I" , I mean the admins as a team) will talk to the cmods and the mods and we'll see what, if anything, needs to be done. and stop the eye rolling! There is already a discussion on this on the admin forum.

Chips Lovell

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Definitely, I think the former ought to be a priority. I guess what I'm saying is that users need to recognise their role in creating a vibrant discussion forum is even more important than the mods'.

It's the users who create the community and if they minimise their interaction with these nitpicking types, it would be far more effective than asking the mods to nanny the forum into good health.

Unfortunately, the urge to get the last word in often gives these people even more oxygen. God knows, I've fallen victim to it myself enough times...

Absolam

Is it possible that the posts aren't actually solely designed to bore or exasperate people into not bothering to post, but a poster may see them that way because they bore or exasperate them? It doesn't seem fair to attribute a motivation to someone without even giving them an opportunity to say that it is or isn't why they do what they do. Myself, I find it very hard to believe that anyone is going to post on a forum purely with the objective of shutting down discussion and forcing people to leave. Sure, occasionally maybe someone might childishly try to drive others away from participating so that theirs is the only opinion heard; I've seen that kind of pique now and then, but I find it very hard to imagine someone posting on boards solely for such a purpose. I'd say most people want to hear more than just others agreeing with them; that's surely why people engage in many of the discussions here? I'm inclined to think that anyone who is posting long term on subjects probably has a genuine interest in them, and even though their opinions may be at odds with others discussing the subject, if they're genuinely held, and the poster is prepared to discuss them, we can engage with them or ignore them. But I don't think suppressing posters who are willing to engage with the subject adds anything worthwhile to a discussion.

Having been posting in A&A for many years, I'd say there's absolutely no doubt that A&A is a forum where mantras are endlessly repeated as Looksee says, and those mantras are often in response to each other as the threads tend to revolve around subjects where posters hold entrenched views (ban religious schools vs build secular schools for instance). If a view is repeated, the counter view tends to be repeated; sometimes that leads to new and interesting discussions, more often to the same ground being retread, though sometimes in new ways.

Where I would see an issue is where certain mantras align with the gestalt of A&A, and therefore their repetition isn't viewed as soapboxing, but the opposing mantras, rather than being seen as counters in a discussion, are instead pilloried as soapboxing (having been repeated before), or even trolling, since the point tends to provoke the first mantra poster. That sort of one-sided view is what I would worry will lead A&A to become an echo chamber.

I know myself, I am inclined to examine, and respond to, arguments in specific detail. Other posters don't like to sweat the details and would prefer a more free flowing conversation. Whilst I think points put forward deserve full consideration, I can see how such posters would dislike my 'nitpicking' style, just as I imagine they can see I dislike their 'wishy washy moving goalpost' style. Sometimes both styles will engage, sometimes they won't, but having all one or the other would certainly make the discussions less interesting. Rather than encouraging people not to post, I would hope other posters would consider what is being said and engage with it rather than walk away, and why would anyone hope differently? I really struggle with the idea that anyone would post on a discussion forum with the intent of stopping a discussion, but perhaps I'm naive in that regard.

There is a particular poster on A&A who regularly starts threads with click bait style headings and a quip; arguably that's trolling since it's done to provoke a reaction, but if it gets a conversation going is it a particularly bad thing?
Another poster will often post a chunk of text from an article elsewhere (or worse, a link to audio or video pieces) with little or no personal comment; that may be frustrating, even tedious, but again, if it helps discussion along maybe it shouldn't always be frowned upon.
Another frequently presents quotes from posters in a baroque and confused fashion, creating impenetrable posts.
There's a wide variety of posting styles in A&A, along with a slightly less wide variety of points of view, and I think any reduction in that variety, especially from those who are engaging with the subjects, would be be a poor reflection on the forum.

Looksee and I obviously have diametrically different views on what it is to be a tedious poster, possibly even on what constitutes rational argument, but I think we both agree A&A ought not to become an echo chamber. For that to happen, I think different views and different ways of putting forward those views (so long as they address posts and not posters) need to be expressed, not stifled. It certainly seems to me that if you want to kill discussion, removing posters from the forum is a far more effective way to do so than engaging with what they say.

LoLth

repeating a mantra is not engaging or discussing. its preaching/soapboxing and possibly actively refusing to acknowledge that someone else could possibly have an opinion that has any form of validity? But all forums will have a baseline of discussion that attracts likeminded posters to the same place because at least they all have common ground to start from.

Same for nitpickery. people come to boards to have a discussion, not have their posts dissected and examined under a microscope and have to defend every tiny aspect and nuance or have their entire viewpoint disregarded. Thats not discussion, thats debate and not everyone enjoys debate. Discussions evolve, nit picking presents opposing opinions and then stands still as each opinion is evaluated and weighed and only then moves on to the next stage. I have myself been engaged in similar "discussions" usually when someone has been banned and insists on exact explanation of the reason for the ban. its not enjoyable but its extremely easy to do. The problem is the risk of falling into pedantry. no-one likes discussing with a pedantic participant. its exasperating because written word is already missing a lot of the nuance of discussion language without it becoming stagnant and scientifically constructed.

also, while you may find it hard to believe, it does happen that posters will post on a forum specifically for the purpose of drowning out opinions or topics they do not agree with. This can be political or religious or even society based.

there are many different styles of discussion and some are going to be at the extremes of those styles. As long as posters are aware of this and are willing to make allowances for those that do not wish to participate in that style of discussion I dont see an issue. Its when a poster wont let go or engages in tit-for-tat post tennis that just bogs down discussion because they feel a need to somehow win the interwebs that problems arise. this is a discussion forum not an academic exercise. Learning stuff is a byproduct of enjoying the site, not the sole intent.

All forums are going to have a baseline of thinking that is representative of the posters that most often use the forum. Its how that baseline is addressed by those that do not agree with it that matters and of course, it is important that this baseline is capable of shifting as it needs to continue to be representative of the forum users. But this baseline is not a mantra, it is a starting point of commonly held opinion from where discussion can commence. in order to discuss the existence of a higher power in the A&A forum then a poster needs to be aware that all discussion in that forum will start from a position that there is no higher power or not care that there may be a higher power. That's not fighting against a mantra, that's just being aware of your environment and not being a troll.

Absolam

Sure, the mantras aren't engaging or discussing. But I'd suggest they do tend to set out those baselines of discussion you're talking about. I'd say it's the next step that determines whether it's soap boxing or actively refusing to acknowledge that someone else could possibly have an opinion that has any form of validity... does a poster continue to develop the point, or just rest on the original statement? If the same point is simply reiterated without discussion, then yes, stagnation is likely.

Nitpicking, yes, lends itself more to debate than a more casual discussion, but I wouldn't underestimate the appetite for debate. Both Oldrnwisr and Peregrinus are inclined to debate, and are, for my money, hands down the most interesting and entertaining posters on A&A at the moment. I may be the only one who thinks so, but I doubt it. Like you say, it's a style, and some are going to be at the extremes of the styles. I agree wholeheartedly that posters should be aware of this and be either willing to make allowances for those that do not wish to participate in that style of discussion, or simply accept that some posters won't engage with it at all; either one seems reasonable to me; not everyone will want to have the same, or same type of, discussion.

You've said that the baseline of forum opinion is not a mantra, which is fair enough, but it doesn't mean it won't be used as one, and that was really my point; these things tend to get repeated because they are where the discussions come from, and it's not neccasarily a bad thing as long as they develop. I don't think any poster will think they're only contending with a mantra when they attempt to claim the existence of a higher power in A&A, but I don't think they should be excluded from the discussion for trying claim there is one, even if that claim appears mantra like to the body of the populace. Someone else, even that same poster may have offered the claim before, but it's my opinion that's it's whether or not they're prepared to discuss their claim in a reasonable fashion that should determine whether or not they should be considered to be trolling.

LoLth

There is a difference between a poster that goes into the My Little Pony forum and posts: "I honestly don't get it. Can anyone tell me why I should watch this show? / read this comic / collect this toy / give to my kids / become a bronie"

and a poster that posts: "this show is **** and all adults who watch/like it are weird and perverted!"

guess which one took the forum baseline (that it is a forum for the discussion of the my little pony brand of entertainment and toys ) into account and could be taken as trying to start a discussion rather than trolling for a rise and just generally being a dick.

Thats what I mean by a baseline. If a user repeatedly goes into an A&A forum and repeatedly argues the existence of a higher power using the same arguments and evidence again and again then they are not discussing, they are not developing the conversation and they are certainly not trying to post in the spirit of the forum itself. They are sermonising and/or trolling.

As for styles. I honestly dont know what the best solution is here. ban debating? have a separate debating thread/sub-forum? mark threads as discussion only/debate only? have user tags to say if they want to or dont want to participate in debates? any suggestions?

Currently the issue seems to be , weighty debates are seen as stopping discussion because walls of text, often covering the same ground, are being posted. I would argue that the ignore function is almost written for this exact scenario but that may not be the ideal solution. One thing to take into account though is that, while debating may be enjoyable, when it comes to spiritual issues, thought experiments / devils advocate or victories attained through language loopholes may not be well received by those that take their belief systems seriously. Some may even consider "healthy exploration of alternate theories" to be lampooning or deliberate mockery. So it can be relatively easy to fall into the deliberately offensive category.

andekwarhola

There's one or two posters on the site who are renowned for that tedious last man standing multiquote stuff but I would imagine it's quite hard to prove - let alone action them - that they're filibustering and not just genuinely a little bit thick.

Absolam

LoLth wrote: »

There is a difference between a poster that goes into the My Little Pony forum and posts: "I honestly don't get it. Can anyone tell me why I should watch this show? / read this comic / collect this toy / give to my kids / become a bronie"

and a poster that posts: "this show is **** and all adults who watch/like it are weird and perverted!"

guess which one took the forum baseline (that it is a forum for the discussion of the my little pony brand of entertainment and toys ) into account and could be taken as trying to start a discussion rather than trolling for a rise and just generally being a dick.

I think where you have those obviously inflammatory style posts they're reasonably easy to spot and action, but I have a feeling where Looksee is coming from is posts that might be considered inflammatory/trollish by those invested in the baseline view, but not intended to be so by the poster. So maybe, to tweak your first example, "I honestly don't get it. You're saying everyone has to watch this show, but can anyone tell me why I should watch this show?". It's not trolling (yet) but it may not be a discussion the MLP fans want. Then you may come to that mantra aspect further down the line; the MLP baseline regulars every so often post "Everyone must watch this show" and the MLP contrarian regulars (I have no idea why they'd exist, but anyways) continue to post in reply "Why?". Each time it may or may not develop the conversation, and there's an argument that both sides are sermonising/trolling, but if you lean towards the baseline view, then only one side is likely to be infracted. I'm not sure that when everyone in a discussion is 'getting back to basics' as it were, simply arguing against the mainstream view is something that should then become actionable.

LoLth wrote: »

As for styles. I honestly dont know what the best solution is here. ban debating? have a separate debating thread/sub-forum? mark threads as discussion only/debate only? have user tags to say if they want to or dont want to participate in debates? any suggestions?

I don't know if there's a best solution, or even if it requires a solution? My view is debating is just another part of discussion, its not separate. Some posters will want to engage that way, others won't. If someone debates your post, you can choose whether not to respond, and the discussion moves on. When posters hound others to answer what they've said I think it's more likely to impede the discussion, so I think my suggestion would be; let posters debate, but don't let posters force others to debate with them. Borrowing from your next point, if a few posters are engaged in a debate you don't want to bother with, the ignore function is there. Though personally I just scroll past, and that works fine for me.

LoLth wrote: »

Currently the issue seems to be , weighty debates are seen as stopping discussion because walls of text, often covering the same ground, are being posted. I would argue that the ignore function is almost written for this exact scenario but that may not be the ideal solution. One thing to take into account though is that, while debating may be enjoyable, when it comes to spiritual issues, thought experiments / devils advocate or victories attained through language loopholes may not be well received by those that take their belief systems seriously. Some may even consider "healthy exploration of alternate theories" to be lampooning or deliberate mockery. So it can be relatively easy to fall into the deliberately offensive category.

Maybe, and I agree the ignore function fits, though I suspect it's not the fact that debates occur which is exercising Looksee, I get the impression it's more that she feels there is a concerted effort to suppress atheist opinion on A&A through 'nitpicking' posts which are boring or exasperating.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that when it comes to spiritual or philosophical issues, victories (for want of a better word) attained by any means may not be well received by those that take their belief systems seriously, and that goes both ways. In A&A it tends to mean little sympathy for theists who feel hard done by when they think they have 'lost' in a discussion,regardless of how it was conducted, and that's understandable given the fact that very simply, it is A&A. However, on the rare occasions where the baseline regulars feel they are 'losing' discussions (or their views are being mocked), I don't think it's appropriate that by virtue of adhering to the baseline views they should be afforded any greater opportunity to claim their discussion is being killed or they are being trolled than the hapless theists are.

That's an essay more than I intended to post, but really I think the subject actually turns on this one small bit;

LoLth wrote: »

Thats what I mean by a baseline. If a user repeatedly goes into an A&A forum and repeatedly argues the existence of a higher power using the same arguments and evidence again and again then they are not discussing, they are not developing the conversation and they are certainly not trying to post in the spirit of the forum itself. They are sermonising and/or trolling.

I totally agree, but shouldn't that go for the baseline view too? So if a user repeatedly goes into an A&A forum and repeatedly argues the non-existence of a higher power using the same arguments and evidence again and again then they are not discussing either; at best it's soapboxing, at worst it's trolling for positive reactions rather than negative ones. Yes it's the baseline view, but is it right to allow a user to do this, and instead infract a user who counters that post each time in the same way? Whether someone is soapboxing/sermonising/trolling shouldn't be determined by whether their opinion aligns with the baseline surely?

Gavinz

<Mod snip - please don't repeat this type of behaviour, worst case it may result in others following suit which will then turn this thread into a witch hunt.>

BabyCheeses

I'm a former member who sometimes has a quick browse these days and just noticed this in recent posts.

In my previous life here I posted in A&A and eventually gave up on it. I think some care needs to be taken to prevent it becoming an echo chamber but there were some people (many of which are still around) which made the place a chore to browse. Some chilly fellows are clearly trolling, they will turn up, say something which is obviously just to get a reaction and then piss off. Religious people should be free to post their but do we really need to put up with it when the same poster says a real atheist would never go into a church even for a wedding or that atheists are evil because look at Stalin for the umpteenth time?

The mods are in a tough place, the same arguments are repeated over and over and I would be surprised if others weren't like me and are getting sick of replying to the exact same posts from the same members. By the end I could have written a script on how every conversation would go. I remember people being put into quarantine because they couldn't stop with one topic the problem was that bad.

Robineen

Normally, I don't put users on ignore but posters like the OP describes are made for the ignore facility. If enough people did so, the threads wouldn't be so affected. I know one could argue that people shouldn't have to put people on ignore but you can never fully eradicate them from discussion boards.

Faith

Robineen wrote: »

Normally, I don't put users on ignore but posters like the OP describes are made for the ignore facility. If enough people did so, the threads wouldn't be so affected. I know one could argue that people shouldn't have to put people on ignore but you can never fully eradicate them from discussion boards.

The problem is that you can't ignore all of the people who quote and respond to the poster.

Debates and discussions involve people being open-minded and open to learning from each other. Such a thing doesn't seem possible in the online world any more, due to people steamrolling agendas, trolling, nitpicking and becoming armchair experts in everything thanks to Google. It's just so tedious now.

Robineen

Faith wrote: »

The problem is that you can't ignore all of the people who quote and respond to the poster.

Debates and discussions involve people being open-minded and open to learning from each other. Such a thing doesn't seem possible in the online world any more, due to people steamrolling agendas, trolling, nitpicking and becoming armchair experts in everything thanks to Google. It's just so tedious now.

The bolded bit is why I am usually opposed to the ignore facility. But you know what? There are some users you will never learn from. They only serve to exasperate. I don't need to see what they are writing, my life will not be enriched by leaving them unignored. And as I said, if enough people ignore them, either by using the facility or not, the discussion won't be obstructed. People need to not engage these posters. They don't aid discussion and learning.

I placed a user on ignore on a completely different website and my enjoyment of the messageboard skyrocketed. A lot of other users had done the same and that's why it worked. Discussion was freed up again.

These posters are difficult to action against because then the moderation seems heavy-handed. But they can kill a forum off. So sometimes, the individual poster must take action themselves, wrestle back the forum for themselves.

Goya

Deleted User wrote: »

i dont wish to hijack the specific thread but the indulgence of exactly the type of obstructive posting described in the OP is hugely damaging to the site imo. mod actions only ever seem to focus on reaction to it and never address it as a cause,.

I actually spoke to a mod by pm about this recently and he explained that it's difficult to admonish the culprit alone if a bunch of people keep engaging with them and then start getting personal with them etc - hence the blanket "Everyone, back on topic" type interventions. It's pretty important not to take bait. I know the fault lies mostly with the agents provocateurs but there is a responsibility on people not to give them exactly what they're looking for.

That said, it's not always straightforward to ignore, and (I know this looks inflammatory towards mods and admins but don't take it personally - it is just an observation; I'm not meaning to be confrontational) there is a handful of people who get away with what seems like a bizarre amount of goading, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland - perhaps they are just skirting the line though.

And I'm not talking about views I disagree with or unpalatable views - personally I welcome any well supported view, I don't want an echo chamber.

jameorahiely

The same happens in AH . On certain topics, one "side" are allowed to break the charter. Very obvious breeches of the charter, from calling people trolls to persomal abuse, dragging dispute resolution threads in to the discussion. Accusing people of "taking up space" in the thread, and prending they are being "forced" to read the thread, when their own contributions amounts to "+1"

The moderatuon is biased as they permit this and then say that personal abuse is ok. It's an obvious way for one side to shut down discussion

.......

This post has been deleted.

Flint Fredstone

What's the difference in this thread and the one I opened about a poster trolling in the soccer forum that got locked?

padd b1975

LoLth wrote: »

short answer: I think it falls under the "dont be what we think a dick is.

FYP.

For a rule so obviously ambiguous, the 'don't be a dick' rule is trotted out much more often than it should be.