It seems to me like there is a huge number of trolls that have recently joined this forum. Does anybody else agree, or am I just being delusional?
Luckily, I happened to join when there were an abundance of great debaters on this site and most of them have now disappeared:
ChaosBorders: GONE
AkiThePirate/LiamOS: barely posts in debate threads anymore.
Lucia/Lux: barely posts in debate threads anymore.
Abraxas: GONE
Jester: GONE
micatala: barely posts in debate threads anymore.
nygreenguy: GONE
achilles12604: GONE
McCulloch: barely posts in debate threads anymore.
Murad: GONE
Zzyzx: GONE
cnorman18: barely posts in debate threads anymore.
Confused: GONE
And what do we have now. We have a bunch of trolls that are bringing down the standard of debate on this site. I think we still have many capable debaters on this forum that post frequently, but the amount of trolls joining seems to be a problem.
1) Do you think that this forum has a 'troll' problem?
2) If so, do you think that the trolls are successfully bringing down the quality of debate on this site?
3) If so, what can be done about it?
Unless you are going to praise a user/forum member, do not mention his/her name. This thread isn't meant to be a personal assassination against anyone. I simply see a lot of these newer users as trolls and would like to know if anyone else agrees.
Trolls on the Forum
Moderator: Moderators
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20501
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 336 times
- Contact:
Post #11
Where did I say it was not important? I only said it was not of primary importance.Angel wrote: Even if it is not the 'main' importance but I assume that you realize that logic, evidence, and honesty are still important factors of a debate. I question of what use a debate would be if these factors aren't present.
Where did I say that? Let me reiterate:So you say in response to trolls, "leave it at that".
Let me give you one take away regarding trolls - debate them civilly if you're going to debate them at all. Civility on the forum is what is paramount. If you attack them, it is only going to lengthen the time it takes to boot them from the forum.
Rarely have I seen this to be the case. Over time, they will get removed since they violate the (existing) rules. But, if people continue to personally attack them, it will take longer to remove them.The trolls can damage and distract just as long as they do it "civilly".
Because I want to enforce the existing rules and you want to demand adding more rules is passive? Let me add something here. Your attitude is not conducive to me taking you seriously. I've been trying to be patient with you on this matter, but my patience is rapidly running out. You'll need to show a little respect or else the entire matter will be dropped.That has got to be one of the WEAKEST and most PASSIVE responsess I've heard in my life.
This forum is for CIVIL and RESPECTFUL debates. Where does it say on this forum that mature and honest debates is the goal? You are simply forcing your own view of what you want this forum to be.When I call out the dishonest person or troll for what they are just to get to specifics, your response to that is to punish ME and other debaters who are under the impression that THiS forum would only have mature and honest debates.
Yes, I expect people to remain civil and respectful under any circumstance. Even with it's filled with logical fallacies.Again, this is WEAK and PASSIVE on your part. You expect people to remain civil when their threads and views are being damaged and being filled with distractions?
I'm not asking for people to feel sorry for me.I don't feel sorry for you because you want to pass off this forum as being highly respected, high quality, and challenging but you refuse to do the work to foster an environment for such debates to take place.
Like all the rules, this rule is being enforced.and probably even some of the rules you already have on the forum, like rule #5 - supporting your claim with evidence.
I'm not going to lower the current standards of this forum. And no, I've already said that debaters are not going to moderate their own threads.If you and your moderators can't handle the workload then I'd recommend that you lower your standards and get more moderators or at least let honest debaters moderate their own threads.
I doubt it. If you can't demonstrate civility to me, why should I expect that you would be civil to others?No one would have as much interest than me in ensuring that MY threads stay on track in terms of civility, supporting views, etc.
Post #12
Here's part of your response when it comes to dealing with trolls:otseng wrote:Where did I say that? Let me reiterate:Angel wrote: So you say in response to trolls, "leave it at that".
Let me give you one take away regarding trolls - debate them civilly if you're going to debate them at all. Civility on the forum is what is paramount. If you attack them, it is only going to lengthen the time it takes to boot them from the forum.
"you are free to show where they are in error, and you should leave it at that." (pg. 1, post #6, 2nd paragraph)
To address both of these points I'd say that doing nothing about dishonesty also lengthens the time that it will take to ban trolls and other dishonest people (or their behavior) from the forum. You talk about correcting the trolls and leaving at that but you assume that the troll will accept the correction instead of ignoring it and continuing on with their dishonesty, distractions, and derailments of people's views and threads. In my experience, just ignoring someone does not prevent the damage to people's views, people's threads, and to keep other unsuspecting people from being misled and wasting numerous posts and energy debating with a dishonest person.
My behavior towards trolls has not been to attack them personally but rather to keep them from misleading people and derailing good threads. This really isn't about your pre-existing rules, but rather it's about rules that I feel that you are LACKING. While I'm waiting for you to act on pre-existing rule violations the trolls are likely still doing plenty of damage. Keep in mind, it isn't just trolls who do this. People whose motivation it is to win a debate at all cost or who get angry after their position is disproven may also resort to dishonest tactics.otseng wrote:Rarely have I seen this to be the case. Over time, they will get removed since they violate the (existing) rules. But, if people continue to personally attack them, it will take longer to remove them.Angel wrote: The trolls can damage and distract just as long as they do it "civilly".
What I've called weak and passive is your response as to how you'd deal with dishonesty.otseng wrote:Because I want to enforce the existing rules and you want to demand adding more rules is passive? Let me add something here. Your attitude is not conducive to me taking you seriously. I've been trying to be patient with you on this matter, but my patience is rapidly running out. You'll need to show a little respect or else the entire matter will be dropped.Angel wrote: That has got to be one of the WEAKEST and most PASSIVE responsess I've heard in my life.
As for your comment about my attitude I see a double standard. When you lose your patience, you have your moderator powers to use to stop a problem. But when I lose my patience with someone who’s REPEATEDLY engaging in dishonest debating, I have no moderator powers or rules to put a STOP to it. Instead, I have to keep going in endless debates trying to expose how someone is being dishonest. Do you think lying about someone is conducive of civility? I can see why remaining civil is easy for you to say when you're speaking from a omnipotent perspective.
Honesty and mature debates may not be the 'main' goal but I would assume that those two factors would be welcomed by you if you intend to have productive debates here. Do you want dishonesty and immaturity in debates?otseng wrote:This forum is for CIVIL and RESPECTFUL debates. Where does it say on this forum that mature and honest debates is the goal? You are simply forcing your own view of what you want this forum to be.Angel wrote: When I call out the dishonest person or troll for what they are just to get to specifics, your response to that is to punish ME and other debaters who are under the impression that THiS forum would only have mature and honest debates.
So all that you're going by is my reaction to you on this matter? To be honest, my frustration and passion on this matter is in part due to you giving me the run around when it comes to how you've handled my rule suggestions. Not to mention your unusually long time that it took you to give me an update or to respond to some of my points. I've presented evidence showing people bringing up the issue of dishonesty on the forums. I've explained how you can show that someone is being dishonesty (not in all cases, of course). I narrowed down my suggestion on dishonesty rules to two rules and I even went as far as defining/explaining the rule myself so that way you and your moderators would have little to no work to do. I simply asked you a few days ago for a status update on my rule suggestion and you make me have to go through all of this again. There's really nothing else to go over here other than for you to follow through on the rule which I was under the impression that you already accepted.
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20501
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 336 times
- Contact:
Post #13
Right, you had left out the first part. What I mean by the second part is that one should not then call them any names or say that they are being dishonest. You can give counterarguments, correct misinformation, and present evidence. But, going any further than that would more than likely get you into trouble.Angel wrote: Here's part of your response when it comes to dealing with trolls:
"you are free to show where they are in error, and you should leave it at that." (pg. 1, post #6, 2nd paragraph)
Isn't it also your motivation to win a debate at all costs? If you correct someone else and he continues to spout error, are you not then insisting that he acknowledges that he is wrong and you are right? What I maintain is that it is enough for you to clarify errors and leave it to readers to decide for themselves who is wrong or right.People whose motivation it is to win a debate at all cost or who get angry after their position is disproven may also resort to dishonest tactics.
There are two options. One is to totally ignore the person. Another is to engage with the person. If you chose to engage him, then you'll need to do so civilly.In my experience, just ignoring someone does not prevent the damage to people's views, people's threads, and to keep other unsuspecting people from being misled and wasting numerous posts and energy debating with a dishonest person.
Actually, it's not so different. All I have to do is just ignore you (which I said I would do if you are uncivil towards me). All another has to do is ignore the troll. Yes, I could exercise my omnipotent powers and delete your account, but that would be abusing my powers.As for your comment about my attitude I see a double standard.
No, lying is not conducive of civility. But, how can one prove someone is intentionally lying? I'm not keen on getting into a debate with another person to prove if someone is lying or not.Do you think lying about someone is conducive of civility?
Remaining civil is not easy for anyone, even for those who are in power.I can see why remaining civil is easy for you to say when you're speaking from a omnipotent perspective.
This is a false dichotomy. It is not either have honesty and maturity as the primary goal or have dishonesty and immaturity in debates.Do you want dishonesty and immaturity in debates?
Then you read what I said incorrectly. I stated:There's really nothing else to go over here other than for you to follow through on the rule which I was under the impression that you already accepted.
"Also, if something like this is going to be added, more moderators will need to give their input on this."
I generally do not modify the rules without input from the moderating team. Though two moderators have given their input, I don't see much consensus on your suggestions.
BTW, I also think we need to add a guideline to not speak for others.
Post #14
When I said winning a debate at all costs, I meant doing anything to win like resorting to dishonest tactics. I would like to win all of my debates through HONEST means but I fully acknowledge that I am not always right so I don't have the expectations that I will win every single debate.otseng wrote:Isn't it also your motivation to win a debate at all costs? If you correct someone else and he continues to spout error, are you not then insisting that he acknowledges that he is wrong and you are right?Angel wrote: Here's part of your response when it comes to dealing with trolls:
People whose motivation it is to win a debate at all cost or who get angry after their position is disproven may also resort to dishonest tactics.
First, you're still letting people get away with dishonesty by not putting a stop to it. Ignoring the person after I correct or respond to ONE of their FALSEHOODS about me or a claim of mine does nothing to STOP the behavior IF the person is dishonest. If that were the case then I wouldn't bringing up this issue to you.otseng wrote: What I maintain is that it is enough for you to clarify errors and leave it to readers to decide for themselves who is wrong or right.
Secondly, I don't know what all the readers will read but I won't assume that all or most of them will be able to figure it out on their own. Some will inevitably be misled if they don't read the whole thread or even the entirety of every post. THere are many sneaky ways to twist someone's words or at times multiple ways that a statement can be understood so the LAST THING I need is someone making it worse by DELIBERATELY distorting my views or claims.
And if or when you accept my suggestions then there will be three options, moderator intervention to actually STOP the dishonest behavior.otseng wrote:There are two options. One is to totally ignore the person. Another is to engage with the person. If you chose to engage him, then you'll need to do so civilly.Angel wrote: In my experience, just ignoring someone does not prevent the damage to people's views, people's threads, and to keep other unsuspecting people from being misled and wasting numerous posts and energy debating with a dishonest person.
You did not mention the word ignore in your last post but I'll take your word that that's what you meant when you said, "You'll need to show a little respect or else the entire matter will be dropped."otseng wrote:Actually, it's not so different. All I have to do is just ignore you (which I said I would do if you are uncivil towards me). All another has to do is ignore the troll. Yes, I could exercise my omnipotent powers and delete your account, but that would be abusing my powers.Angel wrote: As for your comment about my attitude I see a double standard.
Also, you said that you could ignore a troll rather than using your moderator powers, but you have both options whereas, I only have one. And if you have the option to use it than eventually you will use it. One complaint I had a while ago was about someone making REPEATED unsupported claims. Your response to me if I remember correctly was just to take care of it through debate. Seeing that it was a RULE to support claims with evidence, a moderator could've STOPPED the person by enforcing the rule and the person would have no choice if they don't want to receive a moderator warning. THis shows you have the ability to limit your patience being tested more than I can whether you use it or not the option is still there and I can only ASSUME that you won't abuse it - I can only go by the actions of yours that I'm aware of.
Also, I've already explained how ignoring a troll still leaves a problem.
I've already explained this and had you responded to my examples then rather than sidestepping them then you would've known. One easy way is by looking into someone's past posts. If someone tells me that they never made a claim about God not existing, and I dig up their past posts and find claims from them about God not existing, then that was clearly a lie on their part. They MADE the claim so how could they say that they didn't. We can say that they forgot but then I bring it to their attention and their reaction is still to deny it or make excuses. That action is clearly compatible with dishonesty or someone who doesn't want to accept truth. I've limited my suggestions to REPEATED inconsistencies and misrepresentation of views AFTER it was made known that these were occurring.
It's can be easier than a non-moderator since you have more options.
One of your options was not part of my point. I didn't mention having honesty and maturity as a "primary" goal. I said, "Honesty and mature debates may not be the 'main' goal". You said this forum is for CIVIL and RESPECTFUL debates. I asked you if those debates should also be honest and mature so what is your response? Yes or no?
I think there's been enough input or I should really ask how much input are you looking for. Not having a clear goal post to reach, although I don't recall anyone else having this same difficulty and DELAYs, opens the door for you to keep changing the goal post and giving me the run around. THat's why I'd really prefer to have this conversation on a one-on-one basis with you so that there's no distractions.otseng wrote:Then you read what I said incorrectly. I stated:Angel wrote: There's really nothing else to go over here other than for you to follow through on the rule which I was under the impression that you already accepted.
"Also, if something like this is going to be added, more moderators will need to give their input on this."
I generally do not modify the rules without input from the moderating team. Though two moderators have given their input, I don't see much consensus on your suggestions.
Ignore it, just like you tell me to ignore dishonesty.otseng wrote: \BTW, I also think we need to add a guideline to not speak for others.
- OnceConvinced
- Savant
- Posts: 8969
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
- Location: New Zealand
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
- Contact:
Re: Trolls on the Forum
Post #15deleted
Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.
Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.
There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.
Check out my website: Recker's World
Re: Trolls on the Forum
Post #16I share the same sentiments as you. If anyone comes across a decent debating site that emphasizes and EFNORCES supporting claims with evidence and logic then please email me about it. The civility thing on this site is going a little too far for me. There's too much energy spent on it compared to reinforcing honest and rational debates. Calling a NON-forum member a name just ONE time gets more moderator attention then someone REPEATEDLY lying or ignoring evidence, etc. When people can get away with being dishonest just as long as they're civil then civility starts to be ridiculous. Banning trolls is not enough when others are doing some of the things that you and I bring up.cnorman18 wrote: I TOTALLY agree. I have been virtually absent from this (formerly excellent) forum for quite a long time now, for precisely this reason. I have attempted to return several times; each time, I have been trolled and deliberately goaded and tormented by the kind of gameplaying that has been exhibited in the C&A thread on which I am currently active.
Calculated dishonesty and deception, deliberate, vicious baiting and goading, in tandem with smug refusals to even acknowledge counterarguments and protests -- these cannot be "handled in debate." Rulings from the mods have been tepid and timid at best, in the apparent hope that these vicious trolls will eventually exhibit some decency and good faith (no pun intended) in their posts, on their own. That hope is, alas, doomed to disappointment, and the trolls rock on.
It has even happened -- it happened to ME -- that outraged reactions and perfectly human responses to the trolls' baiting and smears, even when measured and reasonably expressed, have resulted in more energetic sanctions and interventions from the mods than anything applied to those who ACTUALLY and DELIBERATELY PROVOKED these reactions. This kind of stiff, inhuman adherence to the letter of the "rules," without a common-sense eye to the atmosphere and morale of this forum and to the feelings and perceptions of RESPONSIBLE members, is -- shall we say, counterproductive.
For starters: If a LIE is a LIE, and an OBVIOUS and BLATANT lie, there ought to be nothing "uncivil" about calling it what is -- and, even more importantly, there OUGHT to be some way to deal with the LIE ITSELF rather than placidly pretending it will be "handled in debate," because that approach has proven to be WHOLLY INEFFECTIVE over the last two years or so.
The gameplayers and trolls are being given a free pass, as long as they stay within the LETTER of the rules -- and those who are attempting to fight them and counter them are being hamstrung by a blinkered, lockstep devotion to those same ineffective rules. As long as this sort of thing is allowed to flourish here, and is therefore de facto condoned, this forum will continue its slide into mediocrity and irrelevance.
It's a tragedy. This was once a great place to hang out for intelligent conversation and meaningful, sincere and honest debate, and I counted many of its members as friends.
As it stands now, it's an unpleasant place filled with unpleasant people who come here only to torment and bait others. I might as well go into a biker bar and shout, "HARLEYS SUCK" as try to post an intelligent comment here. Intelligent replies aren't happening, but such comments draw the trolls like honey draws flies.
I'm tired of it. I doubt I'll be post here again, unless I see that this problem is finally getting the attention it deserves. And I'm not holding my breath. If the exits of the members named above, including myself, doesn't get anyone's attention, I don't think anything will.
A reasonable level of civility for me would just be to keep people from making ad hominems; anything beyond that I can deal with just as long as the person is still under obligation to debate honestly and support their claims.
Re: Trolls on the Forum
Post #17OnceConvinced wrote:No more than ever before. I have been a member on this site for a long time now and go away for long periods of time. I come back and things are much the same, just different people.WinePusher wrote:
1) Do you think that this forum has a 'troll' problem?
Also what is "troll"? It seem some people term people to be trolls simply because they do not have respect for their beliefs/religion. Some people are very outspoken against religion, but does that really make them a troll?
"I believe in no religion. There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man’s own invention..."
C.S. Lewis
C.S. Lewis
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20501
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 336 times
- Contact:
Post #18
McCulloch has agreed to:Angel wrote: I think there's been enough input or I should really ask how much input are you looking for. Not having a clear goal post to reach, although I don't recall anyone else having this same difficulty and DELAYs, opens the door for you to keep changing the goal post and giving me the run around. THat's why I'd really prefer to have this conversation on a one-on-one basis with you so that there's no distractions.
That is the only agreement from any of the moderators. Since the entire moderating team will be enforcing whatever is decided, it would be best if at least a majority of the moderators agreed to it.If you argue a claim that is inconsistent with one of your previous claims, then you must retract one of your claims when the inconsistency it is brought to your attention. You must make it clear which claim you accept and intend to argue for.
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20501
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 336 times
- Contact:
Re: Trolls on the Forum
Post #19That's how it goes here. If you don't like it, then you are free to go elsewhere. The primary goals of this site of civility and respect is not going to change.Angel wrote: Calling a NON-forum member a name just ONE time gets more moderator attention then someone REPEATEDLY lying or ignoring evidence, etc.