Time Wasters

[studiot]

I'm sorry to need to post this but it seems we are enjoined to give time wasters what is, in my opinion. excessive rope.

I put a deal of thought and effort into trying to offer help, at an appropriate level to one such who was a self confessd novice at science.

After several tap dancing replies to my moderately lengthy explanations, I was beginning to smell a rat when this person decided to no only question what was being said, but also expound his own gospel of the laws of physics something he had already said he knew little or nothing about, all the while carefully ignoring simply prepared explanations, just for him.

What other behaviour would this suggest, other than trolling?

I further note that since I and other regular members left the thread in question, he has opened a series of increasingly far fetched new threads.

[exchemist]

51 minutes ago, studiot said:

I'm sorry to need to post this but it seems we are enjoined to give time wasters what is, in my opinion. excessive rope.

I put a deal of thought and effort into trying to offer help, at an appropriate level to one such who was a self confessd novice at science.

After several tap dancing replies to my moderately lengthy explanations, I was beginning to smell a rat when this person decided to no only question what was being said, but also expound his own gospel of the laws of physics something he had already said he knew little or nothing about, all the while carefully ignoring simply prepared explanations, just for him.

What other behaviour would this suggest, other than trolling?

I further note that since I and other regular members left the thread in question, he has opened a series of increasingly far fetched new threads.

Yes I pointed out what that poster does, for the benefit of those who might be tempted to respond, and got my knuckles rapped. I had reported him as soon as I clocked him,  and only made a post on the thread when I could see some people were getting sucked into his vortex of nonsense. Each forum has its own policy I guess, depending on how much the mods are willing to tolerate, each time this person returns as a new sockpuppet. Which tolerance he is now exploiting as far as he can....   I'm still learning how things work here. 

[TheVat]

It was probably easier to check IP addresses (and block them, or a small range around them) when the web was younger and fewer had multiple IP addresses or VPNs or the like.  It's harder to decisively determine the electronic fingerprint of a sockpuppet, so one is forced as a mod to give BotD.  It can be frustrating for a member who in good faith puts together a lengthy explanation at a novice level, as Studiot and others do.  One hopes that somewhere out there a reader looks in who does benefit from such explanation.  (That would be me, in some physics threads...)

[Phi for All]

44 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I'm still learning how things work here. 

The way things work isn't as simple as pointing out similar styles. The particular style you mention takes some time to develop before it fails the sniff test. It's similar to the way many neophytes post (which is obviously why the trolls copy it). If we had IP address matches, you wouldn't see more than a couple of posts from a sockpuppet, but the time-wasters have multiple ways to evade that basic test.

I can't speak for the other moderators, but I'm unwilling to ban someone just because you recognize patterns that are reminiscent of a known time-waster. We need more than that to be fair. The poster in question falls within a suspect range of IP addresses, but it's on a very popular provider so there's an element of doubt that requires us to juggle between wasting your time and rushing to ban a new member. If you'd like to suggest a rule change that let's us ban trolls more quickly yet still accurately, let us know. 

[swansont]

What rules were being broken?

Was it reported? 

 

As far as knuckles being rapped, calling someone out as a sock or a troll is off-topic. We prefer not to have members go vigilante and deal with these situations on their own.

And we’ve had instances where suspected sockpuppets we determined to not be the previous poster that was suggested. We have some threshold of proof needed before we pull the trigger on banning people.

23 minutes ago, TheVat said:

It was probably easier to check IP addresses (and block them, or a small range around them) when the web was younger and fewer had multiple IP addresses or VPNs or the like.  It's harder to decisively determine the electronic fingerprint of a sockpuppet, so one is forced as a mod to give BotD.  It can be frustrating for a member who in good faith puts together a lengthy explanation at a novice level, as Studiot and others do.  One hopes that somewhere out there a reader looks in who does benefit from such explanation.  (That would be me, in some physics threads...)

We’ve had cases where we’ve had IP address matches of a suspected sockpuppet with long-standing members (with a gap of several months) Such is the problem of dynamically-assigned IP addresses. It makes confirmation more difficult.

[MigL]

I feel your pain, Studiot.
Most times these posters ask questions easily answered by a google search, or 'pepper' their post with scientific buzz-words which they think mean something else.
I usually tend not to reply to those posts, and hope the thread dies a quick death.
If feeling particularly bored I might reply with attempted humor, but I really hate it when those types of threads go on for many pages, and no one learns anything from them.
Sometimes it gets so bad I don't post anything for several days.

[Mordred]

 The ones I find frustrating are the posters that resort to insult tactics after you spend considerable time trying to correct misconceptions, explain why they are wrong, or describe something that you support with material written by professionals in a particular field. It truly does make one feel that they are literally wasting their time. In those circumstances it never seems to matter how much supportive documentations such as professional peer review material, the relevant mathematics etc you present to support your statements. In those cases I have to constantly remind myself that even when you cannot help said individual you invariably help other readers.  Eventually though one has to report the individual which the moderation staff does an excellent job of cooling the situation down. 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Mordred

[Lorentz Jr]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

You need to report the offending posts so they can be evaluated

 

57 minutes ago, Mordred said:

The ones I find frustrating are the posters that resort to insult tactics after you spend considerable time trying to correct misconceptions, explain why they are wrong, or describe something that you support with material written by professionals in a particular field.

Eventually though one has to report the individual which the moderation staff does an excellent job of cooling the situation down. 

@swansont, I want to do whatever I can to help in dealing with problem posts and posters as civilly and as effectively as possible, without breaking any forum rules or offending other posters. My recent experience has been that another poster has persistently and unrepentantly used logical fallacies, changed the subject when proven wrong, made obvious and insulting misinterpretations of comments, posted random bits of "material written by professionals" that were immaterial to the discussion at hand, and persistently maintained the air of a "Resident Expert" to spread misinformation about physics and personally insult me.

My response has included (but obviously has not been limited to) collecting multiple posts, filtering out irrelevant content, and explaining clearly and concisely what the mistakes and fallacies were, but it appears that this poster's attitude hasn't changed. I'm very worried about this, because I'm a new poster and the other person has been here a long time. I spent several months earlier this year arguing with trolls on another forum, and I'm not going to waste my time doing that here.

So it seems to me that the situation from your perspective is this:

Either I or the other poster is a shameless, ignorant liar who has been unfairly insulting the other person and has been repeatedly spreading misinformation.

And the situation from my perspective is this: I know for a fact, and I think I've argued as clearly as possible, that I'm not the liar.

So my question for you and any other moderator(s) on this board is this:

Is scienceforums.net a real science discussion forum, or is it just another troll site that pretends to discuss science while allowing trolls to lie about physics and insult posters who call them out for lying?

Please let me know if I can provide you with more supporting evidence or arguments. As I said, I already compiled extensive breakdowns of the fallacies and mistakes in the other poster's comments, so I think anyone with a moderate understanding of physics should easily be able to tell what was really going on by reading the thread.

Thanks for reading.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

@swansont, I want to do whatever I can to help in dealing with problem posts and posters as civilly and as effectively as possible, without breaking any forum rules or offending other posters. My recent experience has been that another poster has persistently and unrepentantly used logical fallacies, changed the subject when proven wrong, made obvious and insulting misinterpretations of comments, posted random bits of "material written by professionals" that are immaterial to the discussion at hand, and persistently maintained the air of a "Resident Expert" to spread misinformation about physics and personally insult me.

My response has included (but obviously has not been limited to) collecting multiple posts, filtering out irrelevant content, and explaining clearly and concisely what the mistakes and fallacies were, but it appears that this poster's attitude hasn't changed. I'm very worried about this, because I'm a new poster and the other person has been here a long time. I spent several months earlier this year arguing with trolls on another forum, and I'm not going to waste my time doing that here.

So it seems to me that the situation from your perspective is this:

Either I or the other poster is a shameless, ignorant liar who has been unfairly insulting the other person and has been repeatedly spreading misinformation.

And the situation from my perspective is this: I know for a fact, and I think I've argued as clearly as possible, that I'm not the liar.

So my question for you and any other moderator(s) on this board is this:

Is scienceforums.net a real science discussion forum, or is it just another troll site that pretends to discuss science while allowing trolls to lie about physics and insult posters who call them out for lying?

Please let me know if I can provide you with more supporting evidence or arguments. As I said, I already compiled extensive breakdowns of the fallacies and mistakes in the other poster's comments, so I think anyone with a moderate understanding of physics should easily be able to tell what was really going on by reading my posts.

Thanks for reading.

1. Being wrong about something is not against the forum rules. Nor is it evidence of trolling, and I should note that “troll” and “trolling” are not well-defined terms. Trolling is often in the eyes of the beholder, and ultimately it’s a judgement call that the staff makes. What you consider trolling may not be what I do. 

2. Being wrong does not make one a liar. That’s a term I am hesitant to use, since it implies intent and the knowledge that one is wrong - that the liar knows the truth and is deliberately posting false information.

3. As such, discussion of a factual nature are left to the interested parties to arrive at a solution supported by mainstream science. 

Where moderators will get involved in such threads is when rules are violated: if discussions go off-topic, if posters are soapboxing, or if they are hijacking threads. We will also step in when civility is lacking - but note that correction or contradiction is not inherently uncivil, while name-calling is (and childish to boot) - and that includes when one attacks the person rather than the argument. But there is a limit here - sarcasm/snark is not outlawed, and we do not operate in the thin-skin limit. As I’ve said before, “Civility is required, but this does not extend to walking on eggshells to accommodate fragile egos”

 

[TheVat]

Pretty sure if someone kept calling me "retarded," "professor," "liar," or my posts "mangled gibberish," I would terminate my conversation with them.  Lorentz may find (cough) transformative benefits in candid self-reflection on his style of discourse.  It's often more illuminating than self-justification.

 

[Lorentz Jr]

55 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Pretty sure if someone kept calling me "retarded," "professor," "liar," or my posts "mangled gibberish," I would terminate my conversation with them.

Because you're not a troll. A troll would continue the conversation, because trolls hate to admit that they've been trolling.

Quote

Lorentz may find (cough) transformative benefits in candid self-reflection on his style of discourse.

As I mentioned to swansont in another thread, you can see from Page 1 of the train thread that my style of discourse is normally polite and courteous. I'll try reporting the abusive comments and see what happens.

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

1. Being wrong about something is not against the forum rules.

What about being wrong repeatedly, to the point of disrupting a thread? Isn't that what this Time Wasters thread is about?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

2. Being wrong does not make one a liar.

That's true. A person who presents himself as an expert and yet is repeatedly wrong about beginner-level facts could simply be a deluded moron. 🙂

1 hour ago, swansont said:

3. As such, discussion of a factual nature are left to the interested parties to arrive at a solution supported by mainstream science. 

We will also step in when civility is lacking ... and that includes when one attacks the person rather than the argument.

we do not operate in the thin-skin limit.

What's the best way to report several posts that ignore a nontrivial question or comment and instead provide dictionary definitions, falsely implying that the person is ignorant of basic terminology? I don't want to seem thin-skinned, but that's an insult to the person's intelligence.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

What's the best way to report several posts that ignore a nontrivial question or comment and instead provide dictionary definitions, falsely implying that the poster is ignorant of basic terminology?

The report post function is for rules violations. I’m not sure what rule you think is being violated.

 

33 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

A person who presents himself as an expert and yet is repeatedly wrong about beginner-level facts could simply be a deluded moron

Is this an example of being “polite and courteous”?

[geordief]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

.

Some kind of a gremlin in the works

Edited December 13, 2022 by geordief

[Lorentz Jr]

1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

What's the best way to report several posts that ignore a nontrivial question or comment and instead provide dictionary definitions, falsely implying that the person is ignorant of basic terminology? I don't want to seem thin-skinned, but that's an insult to the person's intelligence.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The report post function is for rules violations. I’m not sure what rule you think is being violated.

Insulting a person's intelligence is an implicit attack on their ego and their reputation.

Quote

A person who presents himself as an expert and yet is repeatedly wrong about beginner-level facts could simply be a deluded moron. 🙂

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Is this an example of being “polite and courteous”?

No, of course not. I reserve politeness and courtesy for people who I believe are posting in good faith.

This is an example of admitting that it's hard to prove when someone is consciously and shamelessly lying. 🙂

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Insulting a person's intelligence is an implicit attack on their reputation.

You mean like calling them a "moron"?

Your posting style is non-standard around here. Even the trolls are more polite.

[MigL]

54 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

A person who presents himself as an expert and yet is repeatedly wrong about beginner-level facts could simply be a deluded moron. 🙂

Wow.
Talk about 'throwing stones' when you live in a 'glass house'.

[Lorentz Jr]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You mean like calling them a "moron"?

I haven't called anyone a moron, and I don't think anyone on this forum is a moron. My point was that it's the only reasonable alternative to the person being a troll. 😉

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Your posting style is non-standard around here.

That's true. I don't play well with trolls.

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Even the trolls are more polite.

Most trolls are polite. That's how they get people to accept them.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[zapatos]

Just now, Lorentz Jr said:

I haven't called anyone a moron, and I don't think anyone on this forum is a moron. My point was that it's the only reasonable alternative to the person being a troll.

No, it's not. But go ahead and believe that if it helps you get through the day.

 

1 minute ago, Lorentz Jr said:

That's true. I don't play well with trolls.

You seem to have some trouble discerning who are and are not the trolls. You've been insulting some well respected posters. Perhaps allow discussions to progress longer to better understand what people mean and their posting style before using language that is best reserved for playgrounds.

[MigL]

Mordred has earned 'respect' from many of us on this forum.
It seems the jury is still out on you; but you do show hope,and I value ( most ) of your contributions 🙂 .

Don't be obsessively stubborn and blow it.

[Lorentz Jr]

1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

 A person who presents himself as an expert and yet is repeatedly wrong about beginner-level facts could simply be a deluded moron. 🙂

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

Wow.
Talk about 'throwing stones' when you live in a 'glass house'.

Okay, let's talk about that.  What things do you think I repeatedly got wrong while presenting myself as an expert? Or is quoting nostrums and aphorisms your idea of scientific proof? I think that's called an existential fallacy, but you can look it up yourself.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Don't be obsessively stubborn and blow it.

Hope springs eternal 😂 

1 minute ago, Lorentz Jr said:

What things do you think I repeatedly got wrong while presenting myself as an expert?

That’s off topic, which is against the rules. 

1 minute ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Or is quoting nostrums and aphorisms your idea of scientific proof?

For someone so interested in avoiding fallacies, you sure seem to like the ad hom and strawman. 

[Lorentz Jr]

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Perhaps allow discussions to progress longer to better understand what people mean

How long is long enough? I allowed a discussion to continue for three pages, and all I got was changing the subject, ignoring comments, quoting dictionary definitions, and outright misinformation.

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

I allowed a discussion to continue for three pages

You “allowed?” Why thank you for being so benevolent, your highness 

[Lorentz Jr]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

For someone so interested in avoiding fallacies, you sure seem to like the ad hom and strawman. 

Do I? Or are those just vocabulary terms that you happen to know?

[iNow]

Just now, Lorentz Jr said:

Do I? Or are those just vocabulary terms that you happen to know?

Now you’re hijacking yet another thread. Pathetic.