Please don't feed the trolls

[SpaceFluffer]

I've noticed that many genuinely interesting threads get derailed very quickly by users spouting nonsense. These people may, or may not, be trolling, but in the vast majority of cases it seems that ignoring them is the best way to keep an interesting dialog without getting mired in 'your god is wrong' conversations.

What does everyone think? Should we try in vain to reason with these people (1inChrist, Question, Jambo, Peter Morris, Teabag, etc.) or simply ignore them? I can see good arguments either way, I'd just like to get an idea of where others stand on this.

[c4ts]

Are they trolls if they really believe what they say?

[Dr Adequate]

You missed an option.

Mockery.

And cookie recipies, of course. Keep 'em coming, folks.

[turtle]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
I've noticed that many genuinely interesting threads get derailed very quickly by users spouting nonsense. These people may, or may not, be trolling, but in the vast majority of cases it seems that ignoring them is the best way to keep an interesting dialog without getting mired in 'your god is wrong' conversations.

What does everyone think? Should we try in vain to reason with these people (1inChrist, Question, Jambo, Peter Morris, Teabag, etc.) or simply ignore them? I can see good arguments either way, I'd just like to get an idea of where others stand on this.

This is hysterical. When pathological skeptics stop going into "woo woo" forums, then you can post stuff like this.

Oh, the irony!

[SpaceFluffer]

According to Wikipedia:

On the Internet, troll is a slang term used to describe:

1. A person who makes posts (on newsgroups or other forums) that are solely intended to incite controversy or conflict, or cause annoyance or offense.
2. A post that is intended to incite controversy or cause offense. (Many posts may inadvertently cause strife as collateral damage, but they are not trolls.)

You'll have to make your own decision regarding many of our local nutjobs. Just because someone believes what they say doesn't make them (or not make them) a troll.

[Anathema]

You have to engage them for a bit to accurately diagnose them a "troll". The troll brand can't be applied lightly -- it has to somehow be clear that the person's real motive is mere disruption. If that is ascertained, it's time for chile and cookie recipes, kitten photos, martinis, etc.

Avoid direct mockery of identified trolls. It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again. Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

[Yaotl]

Originally posted by turtle
This is hysterical. When pathological skeptics stop going into "woo woo" forums, then you can post stuff like this.

Oh, the irony!

So do you mock the woo woos for doing it first?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by turtle
This is hysterical. When pathological skeptics stop going into "woo woo" forums, then you can post stuff like this.

Oh, the irony!
Do you have anything to post except "Boo hoo, boo hoo, someone asked me for evidence for the nutty ideas I like to Bleeve in so now I hate you all"? 'Cos that seems to be the essence of what you've been posting lately. I see why your feelings are hurt --- no-one likes to be reminded that they're a nutjob --- but why the stupid spam? Let it go.

[c4ts]

For anyone who has asked "what good is logic?" I suggest a debate with a woo woo.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by turtle
This is hysterical. When pathological skeptics stop going into "woo woo" forums, then you can post stuff like this.

Oh, the irony!

So far all three posts you made complain about that very subject, attacking skeptics for that one reason (particularly in your first post). Do you think what you are doing is any better?

[El Greco]

I'd say the crypto-trolls are much more harmful than the obvious trolls ;)

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by c4ts
So far all three posts you made complain about that very subject, attacking skeptics for that one reason (particularly in your first post). Do you think what you are doing is any better?
Hold on... we're feeding a troll... oh, the irony.

Look, turtle, this is meant to be a forum where sceptics and believers discuss the paranormal. For some reason (possibly because there's nothing whatsoever to be said on your side) what we generally get is sceptics discussing the paranormal, and believers whining and shrieking about the sceptics. Do you want to talk about the paranormal? Please do. Start a thread. Tell us all about it.

WARNING: WE MAY ASK YOU QUESTIONS.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Yaotl
So do you mock the woo woos for doing it first?
No, since, in my experience, they do not. No doubt some do, but I have seen the opposite occur many times over.

[Yaotl]

Originally posted by turtle
No, since, in my experience, they do not. No doubt some do, but I have seen the opposite occur many times over.

So you've seen lots of people not doing something? I've seen lots of people not do that too from this forum. I haven't registered at a woo-woo forum to poke fun at anyone or insult them, so doesn't that make me better than you?

[jj]

Originally posted by turtle
No, since, in my experience, they do not. No doubt some do, but I have seen the opposite occur many times over.

Excuse me?

First, we need to define a few terms.

What is a "pathological skeptic"? Please explain precisely what you mean by that term, as understanding what you represent as occuring depends on your use of this particular language.

Second, please tell me what, in your eyes, would render a parapsychological claim "pathological", and what would not.

Once we determine your mindset, then we can attempt discourse. At present, all we have is an unsupported shout of contemt from your side, one that is neither supported nor well-defined.

One thing you may need to learn about skeptics is that they would like to see evidence as well as a good argument. Being asked for evidence, for instance, is not the act of a pathological skeptic, it's the first action to be attempted when a claim is made without evidence to back it up.

[SpaceFluffer]

This thread is becoming dangerously reflexive.

[Correa Neto]

Normally I would stick to the "do not feed the trolls" rule, but in some cases letting them loose can potentially create claims of winning the skeptics "I won this debate". And also there is this almost unresistable impulse "what a pathetic nut!"...

Not to mention that sometimes trolls can disguise themselves as honest, reasonable and curious people.

Best strategy, IMHO is to respond for some time, have some fun and then let the troll starve to death.

BTW, where is the "Planet X"option?

[Interesting Ian]

I trust that no one thinks I'm a troll?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I trust that no one thinks I'm a troll?

No, you're just genuinely mistaken, uncivil, and foolish.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I trust that no one thinks I'm a troll?

Let me be honest. You can be very frustrating to argue with, and not because your arguments are especially strong, but because there seems often to be a fundamental lack of communication.

But I wouldn't say you're exactly a troll--and you do have me scratching my head from time to time.

[patnray]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I trust that no one thinks I'm a troll?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think so. You engage in debate, try to present evidence, and generally avoid name calling and taunting. And you don't "post and run". Although you have strong beliefs, you appear to be willing to at least consider opposing points of view and counter arguments. And you make us think carefully sometimes. Although debating with you is sometimes frustrating, I believe that you have a desire to learn and grow and it is possible that some day you will "see the light" (and I'm not talking NDE...)

[TLN]

Originally posted by patnray
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think so. You engage in debate, try to present evidence, and generally avoid name calling and taunting. And you don't "post and run". Although you have strong beliefs, you appear to be willing to at least consider opposing points of view and counter arguments. And you make us think carefully sometimes. Although debating with you is sometimes frustrating, I believe that you have a desire to learn and grow and it is possible that some day you will "see the light" (and I'm not talking NDE...)

Who the hell are you talking about? :confused:

[Anders]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I trust that no one thinks I'm a troll?
Well, the name-calling doesn’t strengthen your case. Otherwise you try to debate, as far as I can see. You might perhaps be characterized as a part-time troll ;)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Space Fluffer
What does everyone think? Should we try in vain to reason with these people (1inChrist, Question, Jambo, Peter Morris, Teabag, etc.) or simply ignore them? I can see good arguments either way, I'd just like to get an idea of where others stand on this.
Sometimes it can be fun to poke trolls with sharp sticks, but I really dont care to see the board littered in "Hey, another 1InChrist thread", and I dont care for a single poster's comments to monopolize and then derail an entire thread.

(I didnt know Teabag was a troll. A very Yahweh-esque sense of humor, but probably not a troll.)

Originally posted by turtle
This is hysterical. When pathological skeptics stop going into "woo woo" forums, then you can post stuff like this.

Oh, the irony!
By crushing down everything you have to say into the words "You too!", you can achieve a 90% reduction in words you had to type.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I trust that no one thinks I'm a troll?
I dont think you are a troll, but sometimes I find threads you are involved in derail quickly and leave a bad taste in my mouth.

[Ed]

There are trolls. There are those who are deranged. There are the really curious. There are the normal folks like us, well, like me at least.

My philosopy is to hunt out the informative or amusing and post as I see fit. 1 In degenerated to the absurd so I left him alone.

It sorta depends.

[Paul]

Originally posted by Ed
There are the normal folks like us, well, like me at least.It's a good job you qualified that remark; I take reasonably large exception to being characterised in such a manner. Your last-minute modification has saved me from having to demand satisfaction, and surely saved you, sir, from receiving a sound thrashing.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I trust that no one thinks I'm a troll?

I don't think you are a troll at all. You often use insults, but I don't think it's to receive attention, as a troll would do, but rather some sort of self-righteousness.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Paul
It's a good job you qualified that remark; I take reasonably large exception to being characterised in such a manner. Your last-minute modification has saved me from having to demand satisfaction, and surely saved you, sir, from receiving a sound thrashing.

I just re-watched Barry Lyndon. Your remark resonates.:D

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I trust that no one thinks I'm a troll?

Ian, you're a lot of things, but "troll" isn't one of them.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I trust that no one thinks I'm a troll?

Well, you sometimes raises interesting topics, has reasonable arguments and is not a hit-and-run poster, what does not qualify for the classification as a troll. Many of yout threads deserve at least to be read.

But the insults we receive every time we disagree with you opinions do.

I would say you can be classified as a trolloid.

[heath]

I don't aggree with feeding obvious flame-bait trolls but some of the rather troll-like posters here do generate some interesting debates (not that they necessarily contribute much themselves).

Without crackpots like Lucianarchy, 1inChrist or Shanek (the last being the more rational of the 3 but still wildly fanatical about his one unfounded belief) there would be a lot fewer threads and a lot fewer interesting posts on this forum.

It's not like I even read posts by the trolls/fanatics any more. After 100 or so posts it's all just the same stuff in different order, so putting them on ignore cuts down the noise to signal ratio in the threads they participate in without lowering the entertainment/education value.

I say "Feed on".

[c4ts]

Trollfeed good. And if they show a persistent failure to engage in a rational discussion, that's what ridicule is for.

[BPSCG]

There's a wonderful thread going on in Politics/Current Events/Social, starte by 1inChrist - title is something like "Why Are Liberals Comparing Our Wonderful President Bush With Hitler?"

It appears to me to be a textbook example of how to deal with trolls. Amazing how quickly the subject gets derailed to a discussion of rugby players rolling around in the grass having gay sex...

[Anathema]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Amazing how quickly the subject gets derailed to a discussion of rugby players rolling around in the grass having gay sex... Ah yes, the technique proved itself on the same troll earlier in the week, when topics quickly turned to chili recipes and liquor. It works like a charm :)

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
I've noticed that many genuinely interesting threads get derailed very quickly by users spouting nonsense. These people may, or may not, be trolling, but in the vast majority of cases it seems that ignoring them is the best way to keep an interesting dialog without getting mired in 'your god is wrong' conversations.

What does everyone think? Should we try in vain to reason with these people (1inChrist, Question, Jambo, Peter Morris, Teabag, etc.) or simply ignore them? I can see good arguments either way, I'd just like to get an idea of where others stand on this. Years ago, on Slashdot, I asserted that there was no qualitative difference between a troll and a blithering idiot. I wanted to make sure that the trolls knew that no matter how clever they thought they were being in attempting to get a rise out of someone by saying idiotic things, no one aside from themselves and their little a-hole buddies would ever know it because as far as everyone else was concerned, there was no way to tell if a post was meant as a troll, or as the studied opinion of a total sh*thead.

Of course, there were plenty of real trolls on Slashdot, and this opinion offended them mightily. The idea that no one could tell if they were real or not seemed to be absolutely horrifying to them. I don't know if any of them contemplated that the hours they wasted making up absurd crap to annoy the rest of us with were gone from their lives forever, never to be gained back as anything useful, nor do I know if they mourned the meaninglessness of their existence. The reason I don't know is that I could never tell if the troll posts were made by clever people pretending to be idiots or idiots who thought they were being clever. I only caught their snickering when I happened across hidden trolltalk discussions.

I've had my fun mocking absolute absurdity in many web fora since then. Is it feeding trolls, or screaming at fools? I will never know. For all I know everyone else on this forum is really a program designed to fool the Turing test, and I'm an unintended beta tester.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by heath

Without crackpots like Lucianarchy, 1inChrist or Shanek . . . Deep in my secret heart, I think 1inChrist is a stone-cold atheist having a laugh riot at our expense.

On the other hand I think Shanek is actually a computer program. No human being could spray so much bullsh*t from a firehose like that. Either he has no job or family, or he has taken a Libertarian vow of sleeplessness in order to spend enough time making crap up and typing it into virtually every thread that exists on this forum.

I don't know if he does this because he thinks that throwing enough words at his topic will make it impossible for a normal person to spend time refuting his every absurd point, or what. Regardless, it seems he has convinced almost nobody of anything, least of all me.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by BPSCG
There's a wonderful thread going on in Politics/Current Events/Social, starte by 1inChrist - title is something like "Why Are Liberals Comparing Our Wonderful President Bush With Hitler?"

It appears to me to be a textbook example of how to deal with trolls. Amazing how quickly the subject gets derailed to a discussion of rugby players rolling around in the grass having gay sex...
I agree with BPSCG here. That tread is Exhibit A in the casebook on how to deal with a troll.

[H3LL]

This forum seems very tolerant of troll behaviour and 'alternative' thinking, however wacky. Certainly more tolerant than I am.

However, I have noticed from other threads that tolerance is very elusive on many woo-woo forums and many of our members have been booted as soon as their skeptical opinion is identified.

Banning people seems to be quite rare here, and that's a good thing.

I just make use of the ignore option which I find very handy.

[Yahweh]

Whatever happened to that "!Xx+-Rational-+xX!" character, and did anyone ever figure out who's sockpuppet he was?

[turtle]

Originally posted by c4ts
So far all three posts you made complain about that very subject, attacking skeptics for that one reason (particularly in your first post). Do you think what you are doing is any better?

I'll address this to you as well as the others who've posted in this thread.

I am not attacking skeptics, just some.

So far, I haven't DEMANDED explanations, evidence, proof, hassled that people answer my questions merely because I believe they should. . .

I commented on a statement made by someone who calls so called believers "woos." Simple.

Look, both sides call each other names. Personally, from my experience and perspective, I never called nobody nuttin', not until SOME skeptics debunkers whatever, started it. Imagine my naive surprise when, minding my own business long ago, a skeptic called me all kinds of names, merely because of my opinions. Names like woo woo, wacko, deluded, pathetic, fuzzy headed, etc. Wow.

Anyway.

Supposedly this forum, the honorable JREF, allows for "believers" to join and prides itself on not banning people like all of those so-called nutjob forums do.

We'll see. And no, that isn't a challenge.

So, from MY perspective, the other side started it all first. But I suppose, like the Hatfields and McCoys, it's a moot point now.

[Operaider]

Originally posted by turtle
I'll address this to you as well as the others who've posted in this thread.

I am not attacking skeptics, just some.

So far, I haven't DEMANDED explanations, evidence, proof, hassled that people answer my questions merely because I believe they should. . .

I commented on a statement made by someone who calls so called believers "woos." Simple.

Look, both sides call each other names. Personally, from my experience and perspective, I never called nobody nuttin', not until SOME skeptics debunkers whatever, started it. Imagine my naive surprise when, minding my own business long ago, a skeptic called me all kinds of names, merely because of my opinions. Names like woo woo, wacko, deluded, pathetic, fuzzy headed, etc. Wow.

Anyway.

Supposedly this forum, the honorable JREF, allows for "believers" to join and prides itself on not banning people like all of those so-called nutjob forums do.

We'll see. And no, that isn't a challenge.

So, from MY perspective, the other side started it all first. But I suppose, like the Hatfields and McCoys, it's a moot point now. I hope you do stay on here, you'll see that the Jref will bend over backwords to allow you to continue posting. So, far I've yet to see anyone banned from the Jref without a very good reason. Swearing for example. You might do a search through the posts of 1 in Christ (http://forums.randi.org/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=315917) to see the extent that Jref is willing to put up with. 1 in C is the person Space Fluffer was referring to when he started this thread. I've never seen someone spam a believer thread in the way he spams the Jref.