Tedious poster killing discussion

fran17

I have to say,when I initially seen this thread opened I expected it to be locked immediately as it singled out a forum user specifically and was not a general discussion regarding a particular style of debating.I find this witch hunt tactic completely against the spirit of the forum and unacceptable but for whatever reason it remains open despite similar threads in the past being locked rather quickly.
I recall a user in the recent past,account is closed now,who debated in a similar style but because he was an atheist and upheld the opposing side of the argument to the user that's being singled out here,he was the darling of the A&A forum.Funny how he never became victim of this distasteful tactic.

Robineen

^^^^^

The user has gone unmentioned though. I was trying to figure out who it was and there seems to be a few candidates so it's not glaringly obvious who it is.

Plus, it's different of the user doesn't kill off the forum. Maybe the user you mention who wasn't sanctioned didn't stifle discussion. That's the issue here.

fran17

Robineen wrote: »

^^^^^

The user has gone unmentioned though. I was trying to figure out who it was and there seems to be a few candidates so it's not glaringly obvious who it is.

Plus, it's different of the user doesn't kill off the forum. Maybe the user you mention who wasn't sanctioned didn't stifle discussion. That's the issue here.

No I don't believe that argument holds water really.Sure it's being used in this situation to legitimise the thread but I think anyone who takes any interest in the A&A forum will immediately recognise what the motivation for this thread is.
I don't understand why it should kill off the forum,the A&A forum is in the main an echo chamber and I believe any contributions which question it and evoke debate is welcome.The continued encouragement of ridicule towards people's faith and beliefs in this forum is a topic which is far more worthy of discussion.The open hostility towards religion,mainly Catholicism,really is Boards last acceptable prejudice and there is no sign of it abating unfortunately.

Robineen

fran17 wrote: »

I don't understand why it should kill off the forum,the A&A forum is in the main an echo chamber and I believe any contributions which question it and evoke debate is welcome.

Well, it's been noted that it has had a detrimental effect on the forum. One could argue that any of the religion-based fora are echo chambers. Why is A&A singled out on this score? And, whilst this may be uncomfortable for religious adherents, some find the notion of religion worthy of ridicule and there little one can do to change that viewpoint. And hostility towards Catholicism or any other religion is completely valid.

There is not wanting a forum to become an echo chamber and there is tipping the scales the other way so that the subject of the forum can't be discussed properly. It's the Athiest forum, people want to discuss athiest issues, much like you go to the Fashion forum to discuss fashion or Food if you want to talk cooking. And people are being put off the forum because of one user. That's not right.

fran17

Robineen wrote: »

Well, it's been noted that it has had a detrimental effect on the forum. One could argue that any of the religion-based fora are echo chambers. Why is A&A singled out on this score? And, whilst this may be uncomfortable for religious adherents, some find the notion of religion worthy of ridicule and there little one can do to change that viewpoint. And hostility towards Catholicism or any other religion is completely valid.

There is not wanting a forum to become an echo chamber and there is tipping the scales the other way so that the subject of the forum can't be discussed properly. It's the Athiest forum, people want to discuss athiest issues, much like you go to the Fashion forum to discuss fashion or Food if you want to talk cooking. And people are being put off the forum because of one user. That's not right.

The A&A forum should,and will,always be scrutinised as long as those who engage in anti Catholic insults and abuses continue to enjoy the level of protection from mod action that they do.I have no issue with any topic being subject to attack as long as it receives the same,and equal,level of moderation.If some of the insults that are accepted in the A&A forum were to be attempted in any other forum on boards,well,cards would be issued so fast one's head would spin.

Robineen

fran17 wrote: »

The A&A forum should,and will,always be scrutinised as long as those who engage in anti Catholic insults and abuses continue to enjoy the level of protection from mod action that they do.I have no issue with any topic being subject to attack as long as it receives the same,and equal,level of moderation.If some of the insults that are accepted in the A&A forum were to be attempted in any other forum on boards,well,cards would be issued so fast one's head would spin.

It's been mentioned in this very thread that the Christianity forum is much more protected than A&A. I can't confirm that myself because I don't visit the Christianity forum and have no interest in doing so. But if it's true, what do you have to say about that?

looksee

This is not the thread to discuss the posting in the A&A forum, it is to do with the domination of a forum by someone trying to disrupt it.

The A&A forum should,and will,always be scrutinised as long as those who engage in anti Catholic insults and abuses continue to enjoy the level of protection from mod action that they do.

This suggests that you are in favour of disruption of a forum simply because it expresses opinions you do not want to hear. This is inappropriate in any forum and the fact that the argument has come as far as feedback shows the level of antagonism that has been allowed to the opposing side.

The content of any forum is open to discussion, whether you like direction of the discussion or not is irrelevant. If your objections were followed to their logical conclusion there would simply be no A&A forum, as you are not going to like the conclusions reached. However it should be possible for these discussions to proceed without having to conform to the limitations the opposing side demands.

fran17

looksee wrote: »

This is not the thread to discuss the posting in the A&A forum, it is to do with the domination of a forum by someone trying to disrupt it.



This suggests that you are in favour of disruption of a forum simply because it expresses opinions you do not want to hear. This is inappropriate in any forum and the fact that the argument has come as far as feedback shows the level of antagonism that has been allowed to the opposing side.

The content of any forum is open to discussion, whether you like direction of the discussion or not is irrelevant. If your objections were followed to their logical conclusion there would simply be no A&A forum, as you are not going to like the conclusions reached. However it should be possible for these discussions to proceed without having to conform to the limitations the opposing side demands.

Agreed,this is not the thread to discuss the general posting in A&A per se,however it's far from off topic either.You may feel this person is attempting to disrupt it but I'm sure this person and many others would disagree.
I'm not sure how you concluded that I'm in favour of disrupting a forum because I don't like the topic but I assure you its not what I said.

Stealthfins

I used to go on the atheism and agnosticism forum before under an old username.
I was banned for complaining about being abused by another member lol

I was being actually banned for being slagged off lol

There was a guy there who abused and slagged off loads there and he got away with it, because he had some connections to boards.ie

A right smeart alek

Beasty

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

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

I had understood complaints against specific users be they regular users, mods or admins, are supposed to be dealt with in Help Desk. I see no difference whatsoever with the thread you started. I did have a pretty good idea who you were referring to in your OP which is unsurprising given my role around here. However I hardly spend any time in the forum being discussed here but as this thread has developed I reckon I could have a decent guess at the poster being referred to.

Cabaal

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.

I have the user the OP has described on ignore they are only 1x of the 2x users I have put on ignore on all my time on boards.ie. Honestly I can't be bother to view their posts anymore as they add nothing.

But the ignore appears to make little difference, they continue to drag every thread into silly soapboxing and nitpicking with other users with multiquoting (honestly they must get money every time they multiquote).

Also anytime they do post even though I no longer interact with them they still make silly attempts at digs at me which I only happen to see now and then when I'm logged out.

The only way it could be truly effective is if everyone put the user on ignore. But even then I'm not sure it would make much of a difference as they've been on ignore for agess now and they still don't seem to have copped that I no longer interact with them. If everyone had them on ignore they'd likely still keep posting and put off any new users joining the forum....I can't help feel that this might be the entire reason for posting.

Robineen

Cabaal wrote: »

I have the user the OP has described on ignore they are only 1x of the 2x users I have put on ignore on all my time on boards.ie. Honestly I can't be bother to view their posts anymore as they add nothing.

But the ignore appears to make little difference, they continue to drag every thread into silly soapboxing and nitpicking with other users with multiquoting (honestly they must get money every time they multiquote).

Also anytime they do post even though I no longer interact with them they still make silly attempts at digs at me which I only happen to see now and then when I'm logged out.

The only way it could be truly effective is if everyone put the user on ignore. But even then I'm not sure it would make much of a difference as they've been on ignore for agess now and they still don't seem to have copped that I no longer interact with them. If everyone had them on ignore they'd likely still keep posting and put off any new users joining the forum....I can't help feel that this might be the entire reason for posting.

Yeah, the ignore facility doesn't seem to really work on boards.ie. As said, I have seen it work really well on another messageboard I frequent but in that case, it's because lots of people had put the user on ignore so threads often had two different conversations going on and one of those would be independent of the ignored user. People are reluctant to use ignore on boards. I understand why. I avoid it as much as possible myself.

Taltos

Mod Note
Mr Whom - your off topic post was removed. Take more care as I'm not the most forgiving of mods.

jameorahiely

What I have noticed is posters who spend threads accusing others of "killing discussion" never post in the thread again once the poster who was "killing discussion" stops posting. Ironic

Sleeper12

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

In fairness to the mods how are they supposed to know if the poster is genuine or not.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

This is not the thread to discuss the posting in the A&A forum, it is to do with the domination of a forum by someone trying to disrupt it.

I'd be very wary of taking one posters opinion on another posters motivation, particularly if they tend to take opposite sides in a discussion. It has been said that posters will post on a forum specifically for the purpose of drowning out opinions or topics they do not agree with, and it's fair to say A&A does see posters attempting to silence posters that disagree with them, not just by drowning out but by various tactics, and that's a rather sad thing to see, certainly. I remain dubious that anyone posts just to disrupt the forum per se... it seems an alleged level of mischievousness requiring an extraordinary degree of proof.

With regards to disruption, I think posts addressing points used to support an argument, whilst perhaps disrupting the advance of a point of view, aren't detrimental to the discussion, or the forum, and arguably, add to it by engaging with what is said. However posts avoiding the points, ad hominems for instance, are a disruption detrimental to a discussion (and the forum), so I would say disruption can be both good and bad.

Nor is it fair to say that discussions themselves should be absolutely protected from disruption either. Let's say, for instance, a poster on A&A is discussing the wonderful effect praying to the Virgin Mary has had on their child's educational outcomes with another poster who is agreeing that Marianism is altogether a boon to the world. That discussion is entirely likely to be disrupted by various questions (or assertions) regarding the premises being put forward, and more besides, mercilessly and unequivocally I'd imagine. If that's the case (and I think we can all agree it is) then why should a discussion of negative effects of Marianism and praying in schools be protected from similar disruptions? The A&A Charter does not require that atheist/anti-theist points of view be protected, respected, or left unchallenged. It does require that the holders of (any) views (and their right to hold those views) should be respected though.

If the peaceful enjoyment of a certain point of view ought not to be disrupted in A&A then the forum is to be simply an echo chamber. Genuine discussion (even debate) that causes a degree of disruption, in that light, is positive and helps preserve the forum from the soapboxing of placard proclamations.

Taltos

Absolam wrote: »

Let's say, for instance, a poster on A&A is discussing the wonderful effect praying to the Virgin Mary ...

In fairness were anyone to post that in A&A then they're clearly in the wrong forum and are either
A. Lost
B. Not understand what A&A means
C. Flaming, trolling, etc

All depends on the context of the poster but I'd hope they'd respect that the regulars of A&A would see that as twaddle and in no way should they expected to tolerate repeat posters spouting to them what they consider nonsense. Respect goes both ways after all.

Absolam

Yes it's a rather silly example, but my point is assuming either A. or B. their discussion would be disrupted (rather than sanctioned for C.) and such disruption would be tolerated. If as you say, respect is to go both ways then disruption of the opposite discussion should also be tolerated as long as it is in accordance with the Charter.

That posters might consider it the repetition of nonsense is rather a different angle to the disruption one, I think. With regards to that, repetition of nonsense (or what someone considers nonsense) isn't contrary to the Charter (specifically the Charter says proselytizing is not banned), and many many well meaning and invested posters, perhaps even all posters subjectively speaking, could be accused of it to one degree or another.
Constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it is contrary to the Charter, and whilst there is no doubt that there are single viewpoints that are constantly repeated in A&A on both sides of the usual topics, I would say it should not be which side of the topic a poster is repeating that determines whether action should be taken against the poster, but whether the poster is willing to entertain discussion of the viewpoint, because that is the full extent of how the Charter sets out the prohibition on soapboxing.

Cabaal

Taltos wrote: »

In fairness were anyone to post that in A&A then they're clearly in the wrong forum and are either
A. Lost
B. Not understand what A&A means
C. Flaming, trolling, etc

Have to agree here,

Anyone posting in the A&A forum about the wonderful effect praying to the Virgin Mary can't honestly expect people not to respond calling out such a viewpoint as silly, make believe etc

Much like a person going into the Christian forum and posting about how god is all made up can't expect much of the same.

Anyone posting in A&A using the rather flawed example given are certainly either
- Lost
- They've clearly not read the charter
- They are trolling

Yourself isit

The definition of a troll is forum dependent. Saying "Apple sucks" in the Apple forums is trolling but not in an Android forum.

It's up to the mid team at A&A to allow Christians to debate or not, it's not the place for strong theological discussion.

Absolam

Yourself isit wrote: »

It's up to the mid team at A&A to allow Christians to debate or not, it's not the place for strong theological discussion.

Well, at the risk of going somewhat astray of the OP, which raises no objection to Christians debating, the Charter clearly states "This may be at its heart a forum for those who share atheist or agnostic views, but those of all faiths or beliefs are welcome in any discussion. Also welcome are any questions/comments relating to religion, morality, ethics or the origins of life in general. (Just don't hold out for a definitive answer).". Which rather indicates that it has been envisioned to be a place for some theological discussion, and that Christians are welcome to participate. Notwithstanding the evidence that even exemplary ones will occasion strenuous response.

Robineen

Ignore facility, seriously. This is something which is tricky to resolve.

Mark Hamill

Robineen wrote: »

Ignore facility, seriously. This is something which is tricky to resolve.

I don't like the ignore facility, at least in this case. By not responding to these posters, you give them and their side the opportunity to claim that their positions are insurmountable. This is especially an issue in the A&A forum where a lot of the discussions are not necessarily to convince the poster you are disagreeing with (next to impossible to change a convinced theists mind) but are for the silent fence-sitters reading along who may not have much knowledge of the subject.

I find that for posters (at least in the A&A forum) guilty of what the OP described, that very nearly all of their posts are disagreements with atheist positions, nearly always arguing for the status quo and questioning any need for any social change even suggested. A lot of the time they won't even offer their own personal position, laughably claiming they don't have one.
They may even claim that they are not really interested in religion or even that they are atheist themselves, but then use walls of text with densely semantic arguments to argue against every other poster and drive the discussion in circles.

Robineen

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't like the ignore facility, at least in this case. By not responding to these posters, you give them and their side the opportunity to claim that their positions are insurmountable.

I usually don't like it but sometimes it's necessary. I've seen it work well elsewhere.

looksee

The ignore facility works only if everyone is prepared to use it. The arguments put forward as often easy to dispute, provided you go with the flow of whatever direction the contentious poster wishes to go, The contentious poster throws out bits of easily followed bait and there is usually someone who will take the bait - and it only needs one person to take on these irrelevant angles. This results in pointless discussions that push out the original topic and the original topic dies.

Robineen

looksee wrote: »

The ignore facility works only if everyone is prepared to use it. The arguments put forward as often easy to dispute, provided you go with the flow of whatever direction the contentious poster wishes to go, The contentious poster throws out bits of easily followed bait and there is usually someone who will take the bait - and it only needs one person to take on these irrelevant angles. This results in pointless discussions that push out the original topic and the original topic dies.

There will always be posters who can't be sanctioned. They'll get close to breaking rules but never will. It's infuriating but there's little that can be done except not to reply. That will never fully happen though, someone will always reply. So what's to be done?

Beasty

Of course you can ignore someone without having to change your settings!

looksee

Beasty wrote: »

Of course you can ignore someone without having to change your settings!

Yes, that is the system I work on.

.......

This post has been deleted.

jameorahiely

The ignore function is great. I've started using it.,especially for those empty vessel types who don't contribute to the discussion, but just post to get the thread closed. The perpetually offended victims who are unable to articulate their position in debates. These are fairly obvious trolls.