On the subject of feeding the trolls

[mooeypoo]

This thread reminds me of those american soap operas. "Bold and the Beautiful" type, where you stop watching at episode 10, come back at episode 7443 and it's EXACTLY the same.

 

I don't know if you guys don't notice because you're in the midst of the debate or because you're too involved with defending science as we know it, but if a mod decides to randomly delete 40 out of 55 posts here, no one will miss them. It's REPETITIVE.

 

The repetition is obvious, too, to an outside observer:

 

MotorDaddy asks a vaguely strawmanish question.

SFNers answer.

MotorDaddy straw-mans the answer to fit his imaginative view of physics.

SFNers correct him and point out the strawman.

MotorDaddy claims his first question wasn't answered.

SFNers take more time and effort to bring forth multiple accounts of citations.

MotorDaddy claims everything is wrong, all publications, all scientists, all methods of science, all methods of physics -- other than his own, uncited, imaginative version of physics.

SFNers argue he is wrong and supply the answer.

MotorDaddy ignores the answer and asks the same first question under a different phrasing, pretending it was never addressed.

 

And the cycle continues, more or less the same, for 58 posts.

 

MotorDaddy: Your physics is a sham. People have been way too polite with you in this thread and forum considering the fact you come to a scienceforums network (that deals with SCIENCE!) and ask questions while expecting us to ignore reality and science. You then ignore everythingeveryone says and repeat your questions.

 

SFNers: Stop wasting your time. If we had a hint of cooperation here - somethingto suggest that MotorDaddy is even interested in wasting 10 minutes of his already-busy sfn-time *READING* your resources (let alone trying to understand them), then perhaps this would've been a worthy cause. But he's obviously not. He's not reading your answers, he's not reading your resources, he's ignoring your points and then claims you haven't answered them.

 

That is no longer trolling, it's ridiculous silliness.

 

I suggest we all take a step back and go over the thread one more time, calmly, so we can make sure we're not wasting our time (again) answering repetitions. I think we all have better things to do than to repeat yourselves for someone who refuses to acknowledge even the smallest effort.

 

If we don't, I'm afraid this thread will get even more ridiculous. Do the experiment I did and see for yourselves: take a break from this thread for a week. When you come back, see if someone's claiming the sun is 5 meters away despite of all of science, and decide for yourselves if such a claim (which is getting seriously similar to the claims taht ARE made in this thread) is worth dealing with.

 

With respect to most of you,

 

~moo

[swansont]

I moved this, partly because it was in a thread in which Motor Daddy was not a participant.

[Motor Daddy]

Gee, Mooeypooey, and I thought we could be friends. It appears you have some pretty thin skin. Which thread are you speaking of? Is there something you disagree with?

 

Did you run out of Hershey kisses to melt in your microwave?

[mooeypoo]

Is this going to be a bashing thread?

 

I made a mistake answering the wrong thread, but the post is still valid - I am not sure that we need this new thread, I'll just copy/paste this into the correct - INSANELY IRRELEVANT - thread.

 

My purpose wasn't feeding the troll, it was to try and get all of you to stop wasting your time and feed the troll.

 

If anyone thinks I'm wasting my time doing a back-and-forth with someone who has no respect for others, not attempting to listen and strawmanning the other side, then they're wrong.

 

btw, ironically enough, the mistake I've made was to refer to MotorDaddy instead of New Science. VERY weird how it seems to truly fit both, but since I wrote this for NewScience and MotorDaddy just showed up in the IRC chan and started his stupidity, I got them mixed.

 

Funny. Maybe this should be doubled up and pasted under all troll-threads instead of moved to its own thread.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

Maybe we should put up a sign. Which one is better, this one?

 

or this one?

 

[swansont]

Is this going to be a bashing thread?

 

No, it's not.

[Pangloss]

To be honest, I think some people take Pseudoscience & Speculations too seriously. It's crackpot-land. Let 'em rant. If we can pull an interesting nugget outta here now and then, great, but don't lose your lunch over it.

[mooeypoo]

To be honest, I think some people take Pseudoscience & Speculations too seriously. It's crackpot-land. Let 'em rant. If we can pull an interesting nugget outta here now and then, great, but don't lose your lunch over it.

 

Yes, I agree but only partly. I think that the pseudoscience/speculation is a good draw (and it's actually worth checking in the statistics) for ppl who look up pseudoscience stuff on google, search for info, and wanna know what to think.

 

That's why I answer those posts, btw -- for the unsuspecting masses who happen to read them. I don't want people to come out with a feeling that there's validity in stupid claims. On the other hand, I want people to see that science people are not automatically dismissive.

 

But then again, the attempt to show that science people (us!) are accepting can get a bit too far, at times, as we tend to be overly nice to trolls.

 

There's a difference, imho, between crackpots, innocent ignorants and trolls.

 

Crackpots argue pseudoscience and then either leave or shuttup when they encounter a "death blow" to their theory.

Innocent ignorants really do believe what they say, and sometimes can be shown their errors, or at least convinced to read a bit of info about real science (triumph for science!)

Trolls are preaching annoyances with a tendency to the idiotic and a relentless allergy to factual data.

 

We should probably be a bit patient with the first two. The latter should be dealt with, though. Again: it's not so much for the people who make those claims, but rather for those who find us, read through, not necessarily are too well versed in science, but care enough to try and get to a conclusion.

 

It's enough that most "controversial" (that is, what pseudoscientists WANT to be controversial, and usually isn't in real science) subjects give mostly-pseudoscientific results in google. The least we can do is make sure we give a true, just and patient answer to our threads at these cases.

 

But trolls are trolls are trolls. They don't listen, they won't listen, they talk circular logic and idiocy, and should just be spotted and stopped.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

...ppl who look up pseudoscience stuff on google, search for info, and wanna know what to think.

 

Good point. Perhaps the robots.txt file should be modified so that google does not index things in the Pseudoscience and Speculations forum. No need to attract crazies...

[mooeypoo]

What about the ppl we can help, though?

 

And we did help some, it's not like EVERYTHING in there is trollish. We just need to make sure we HANDLE the trolls, and not let them take over.

[ajb]

I agree with mooeypoo's last statement. As the educated minority don't we have a duty to the ignorant? Should we not do all we can to free them from the shackles of their nescience?

[swansont]

Yes, I agree but only partly. I think that the pseudoscience/speculation is a good draw (and it's actually worth checking in the statistics) for ppl who look up pseudoscience stuff on google, search for info, and wanna know what to think.

 

That's why I answer those posts, btw -- for the unsuspecting masses who happen to read them. I don't want people to come out with a feeling that there's validity in stupid claims. On the other hand, I want people to see that science people are not automatically dismissive.

 

But then again, the attempt to show that science people (us!) are accepting can get a bit too far, at times, as we tend to be overly nice to trolls.

 

There's a difference, imho, between crackpots, innocent ignorants and trolls.

 

Crackpots argue pseudoscience and then either leave or shuttup when they encounter a "death blow" to their theory.

Innocent ignorants really do believe what they say, and sometimes can be shown their errors, or at least convinced to read a bit of info about real science (triumph for science!)

Trolls are preaching annoyances with a tendency to the idiotic and a relentless allergy to factual data.

 

We should probably be a bit patient with the first two. The latter should be dealt with, though. Again: it's not so much for the people who make those claims, but rather for those who find us, read through, not necessarily are too well versed in science, but care enough to try and get to a conclusion.

 

It's enough that most "controversial" (that is, what pseudoscientists WANT to be controversial, and usually isn't in real science) subjects give mostly-pseudoscientific results in google. The least we can do is make sure we give a true, just and patient answer to our threads at these cases.

 

But trolls are trolls are trolls. They don't listen, they won't listen, they talk circular logic and idiocy, and should just be spotted and stopped.

 

~moo

 

I think these are some good points to ponder. The crank who descend into ranting and insults when his pet theory is debunked is easy to identify and is gone quickly, one way or another.

 

But it's not always easy to identify the confused/ignorant innocent from the skilled troll, and I think the staff wants reasonable assurance that we would be banning the latter. Incorrigible and polite is simply harder to assess than someone who is rude. It would certainly be a bad thing for a discussion forum to get a reputation for simply sending all dissidents to the gulag. So sometimes it's going to take several (or perhaps many) posts to positively identify someone who isn't here for honest discussion.

 

The system isn't perfect, but overall it works.

[mooeypoo]

I think these are some good points to ponder. The crank who descend into ranting and insults when his pet theory is debunked is easy to identify and is gone quickly, one way or another.

 

But it's not always easy to identify the confused/ignorant innocent from the skilled troll, and I think the staff wants reasonable assurance that we would be banning the latter. Incorrigible and polite is simply harder to assess than someone who is rude. It would certainly be a bad thing for a discussion forum to get a reputation for simply sending all dissidents to the gulag. So sometimes it's going to take several (or perhaps many) posts to positively identify someone who isn't here for honest discussion.

 

The system isn't perfect, but overall it works.

 

Oh, I agree, I am not saying that the system is broken or not working at all. I'm just saying that sometimes - perhaps out of boredom, or strong feelings about science - we tend to feed trolls.

 

I think when someone ignores answers consistently (let's say, for 50+ posts? and insists his/her own view of science is the only one, regardless of facts (who needs reality, pff), it seems to me to be quite indicative.

 

My point is that when I debate someone (and i try to be polite), I try to keep in mind having those ignorants reading the thread. If my valid answers keep being consistently overrun by consistently-repetitive junk, I start suspecting troll'ism. If the person I debate with is consistently uncooperative (stomping his feet on the ground and insisting reality is not important, his own ideas are), I suspect crackpotness. If both happen consistently, I know it's a crackpot troll.

 

I still try and think about the ignorant readers, though.. the crackpot is usually beyond help.

 

~moo

 

p.s (addition): Oh, and if someone insist that the rules are unimportant, or that there's no point even READING the, let alone following them, he/she should be given a MOD-post to show him we're not here for his own little fantasy world preaching.

 

I respect you guys as mods, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job, I just think that sometimes you forget that the rest ofus *don't* get to see what you are debating "behind the scenes" about specific (or general) trolls, and neither is the troll. When things like that happen - before that troll deserves a ban or suspension, even - it might be a good diea to meddle with the thread *as a mod* and show whoever it is that the forum is being moderated, and that even though we are polite and open minded, we do not take insulting our forum rules lightly.

[Bignose]

What with New Science and Motor Daddy starting numerous threads that ended up nowhere, I would just like to point out that we did have one thread that actually ended up with some significant success:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33756

 

Klaynos and I were able to show the OP in that thread that his use of scientific terms was either plain wrong or ambiguous. And the OP came to understand his mistakes and planned to go off and work on learning how these terms are defined and used what their limits are.

 

Really and truly a success story if there has ever been one. I think that it got lost amongst all the NS and MD clutter, however.

[mooeypoo]

Excuse me, but I got Graviphoton to admit defeat on his statistics/bible thread.

 

Success again...

 

~moo

[Pangloss]

I just think that sometimes you forget that the rest ofus *don't* get to see what you are debating "behind the scenes" about specific (or general) trolls, and neither is the troll. When things like that happen - before that troll deserves a ban or suspension, even - it might be a good diea to meddle with the thread *as a mod* and show whoever it is that the forum is being moderated, and that even though we are polite and open minded, we do not take insulting our forum rules lightly.

 

Well, just to give you a little insight on that, I can tell you that all reported posts get scanned by all the mods and admins, usually receiving some kind of attention within a few minutes. Just glancing at the first page of the Reported Posts subforum, which runs back about two weeks, I see that all 25 threads have multiple views, and 14 of the 25 have replies (meaning we talked about them, usually along the lines of "I did ____ to the post/poster", but sometimes in more depth).

 

We could do that in a more open fashion, but I'm not sure there would be a lot to be gained from doing that, and it would certainly increase the noise-to-signal ratio for more casual-minded readers.

[D H]

I think these are some good points to ponder. The crank who descend into ranting and insults when his pet theory is debunked is easy to identify and is gone quickly, one way or another.

We let our latest entries in the troll and crackpot categories hang around far too long, IMO. There is a difference between being open and receptive to new ideas and being a fool. We crossed the line into foolishness by letting our last two entrants hang around for a good length of time and make a lot of *bad* posts in the process.

[swansont]

We let our latest entries in the troll and crackpot categories hang around far too long, IMO. There is a difference between being open and receptive to new ideas and being a fool. We crossed the line into foolishness by letting our last two entrants hang around for a good length of time and make a lot of *bad* posts in the process.

 

The conundrum stems from the desire to treat everyone with the same set of rules. Someone who shows up with a deep-seated misconception about some scientific concept should not be discouraged from posting by getting infractions for "bad" posts, and it takes a little time to distinguish this from trolling with a degree of certainty.

 

And there are some posters who showed up a little rough around the edges as far as etiquette goes, who modified their behavior after getting some feedback. So you want to have that kind of dynamic range in your system.

 

The bottom line, I think, is that the rules and people who enforce them assume good faith on the part of the posters, and it takes a little while to erode that benefit-of-the-doubt.

[Edtharan]

Someone who shows up with a deep-seated misconception about some scientific concept should not be discouraged from posting by getting infractions for "bad" posts, and it takes a little time to distinguish this from trolling with a degree of certainty.

I agree. I think that there will always be the occasional troll that gets through any system, but the tighter you make the system the more legitimate posters will get discouraged.

 

As a personal opinion, I would be willing to let the occasional troll in so that we can better serve those with legitimate purposes.

[mooeypoo]

Well, just to give you a little insight on that, I can tell you that all reported posts get scanned by all the mods and admins, usually receiving some kind of attention within a few minutes. Just glancing at the first page of the Reported Posts subforum, which runs back about two weeks, I see that all 25 threads have multiple views, and 14 of the 25 have replies (meaning we talked about them, usually along the lines of "I did ____ to the post/poster", but sometimes in more depth).

 

We could do that in a more open fashion, but I'm not sure there would be a lot to be gained from doing that, and it would certainly increase the noise-to-signal ratio for more casual-minded readers.

 

Oh, I'm sure, and the mods reaction time is great.

 

I'm not talking about the 'behind the scenes' actions, though, I'm talking about the actions that are SEEN by the n00bs. I think that we - the regular users - know by experience and by our time here - that the mods are keeping order, but the new users, who are here for their own preaching-havoc, might not.

 

Sometimes they might ACTUALLY NOT understand why they're banned. They might think some of us "have it for them" (graviphoton seemed to think I'm having a personal agenda against him while I was trying to get him to read the rules of the forum, for example).

 

What I mean is that I think sometimes, when a post/thread/n00b is going out of control sometimes the mere presence (a post, a 'im not happy you dont read the rules' *public* notice, etc) of a mod can be better than the behindthescenes actions.

 

At least that's my opinion.

 

~moo

[Sayonara]

If some users are too stupid or antisocial to realise why they are getting infraction points before it is too late, then the system is working wrt those users.

[mooeypoo]

That's a good point, but sometimes it takes a whole for those infraction points to "affect" a n actual action.

 

Some users also love seeing a mod backing them up... <whistle>

 

Don't get my wrong, btw, I'm not blaming or flaming, I really do think you guys are doing a great job. I'm just suggesting out of what I see in the pseudoscience/speculation forums lately. I think that for the innocent bystander readers, it is also useful to see how patient we are (And we ARE, wow, sometimes a bit too much, imo) and yet that we do take great care on the forum while not just banning someone out of nowhere.

 

Take into account that the innocent bystander reader doesn't SEE the infraction points someone else got, he just sees that someone banned/suspended.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We're considering starting a moderator escort service. For a modest fee, a moderator of your choice will back up your argument and give warnings to your opponent for up to a week.

[mooeypoo]

It's not about backing up my arguments, Capn, it's about backing up the rules.

 

But I'll pay you to escort me anywhere.

[Reaper]

meh, I'm sure that this site has encountered worse crackpots, trolls, and idiots then either New Science or MotorDaddy. And, well, this site hasn't fallen to pieces yet....