A Question About One-track Posters Impervious to Discussion

About This Message Board
1

Occasioned by this thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=838916 and the poster Jay_Jay as discussed starting here http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20539162#post20539162

We’re now up to 500 posts and 6000 pageviews of this incoherent drivel. About half the posts are the OP saying in effect “I’m not listening to your last comment. Spew, spew, spew”.

The other half are about 50% folks (including me but only twice very early on) pressing the envelope on insulting the poster by dismissing his drivel as drivel. And 50% folks’ sporadic attempts to introduce actual facts and calcs and such into the discussion.

Neither approach makes the slightest dent in this guy’s responses. He could damn near be a bot. So far he remains civil.

Are we doomed to simply let this coal seam fire burn for a decade? Or do we collectively “step away from the thread” with 100% compliance and let him continue to spew unopposed for a few pages until he loses interest? And what if he doesn’t?

I can certainly choose to simply not open the thread, as can any other contributor. In fact I’m rather proud of my forebearance; I last posted as #24 and haven’t done more than scan a few posts here and there since.
The SDMB was founded as entertainment and remains entertainment. Both for readers and for posters. GQ (which the topic thread is not) has adopted a wiki-like mission that’s a pretty thin veneer; all the rest is 100% just for fun. And for pageviews to display paid advertising. I get that. I truly do. But …
I think social media, of which we are an example, is entering a new era. This is the era of the weaponization of social media. A bit like early computer viruses were mostly for geek sport, and now they’re both tools of organized mass crime and organized government statecraft.

Back in the innocent Dayes of Yore a crank was simply a crank and a jerk was simply a jerk. Nowadays we have to at least consider the possibility that we’re in fact being used a conduit for weaponized social media content delivered by a hostile agency intending to damage our society. Both the online one and IRL.

I suspect this guy is a true crank. Motivated by some combo of mild insanity and falling for actual weaponized internet content elsewhere. IMO us letting him use us and our reading community as a megaphone rankles. And serves the interests of his masters whether he realizes he’s their puppet or not. IMO we ought not be in the business of promoting fake news, even if it’s fake news about something now 16 years old.

Bottom line: cranks, crazies, witnessers, and trolls are an existing issue that our existing rules and habits handle well enough with due regard for everyone’s rights and interests. Weaponized deliberate attack posting is a new phenomenon in a whole different category. And probably warrants a new and different response.

I’m hoping with this post to provoke a discussion on this topic:
How could we recognize weaponized attack content and how should we (both TPTB and the rank and file) react to it? The point is not specifically whether Jay_Jay and his thread are that or not; he’s a plausible example, not the underlying issue.

2

A meta-question for situations like this is “how do you differentiate between unteachable CTer and really committed troll?”

The better question is “why bother?”. That question, IMHO, is best answered “you don’t; you ban 'em either way.”

3

Dion’t we have a rule about “one-trick ponies”?

4

I’m not sure it’s a firm rule about OTP. But we have, in the past, dealt with them when they’re disruptive. But staying confined to one thread - one that no one’s required to click or read - doesn’t strike me as particularly onerous.

OTP really become sanctionable when they bring their monomania to many - even unrelated - threads and therefore disturb the enjoyment for other members.

5

Thanks-that makes sense.

6

So, why not at least a mod note since that poster did start two threads on the same subject in different forums? Granted, the one in GQ was a resurrected zombie, but I don’t see where that’s a substantive difference.

7

If the thread in question is an example of weaponized attack content, it’s coming from the Grand Duchy of Fenwick and I don’t think we have much to worry about. Truthers, Birthers, creationists - all serve the Greater Purpose, which is to unite the Dope in smartassery.

The Illuminati paid you to say that, didn’t they?

Regards,
Shodan

8

Why do you all care?

Here’s my thought: anyone who is posting in that thread is getting exactly what they deserve. And probably, they are enjoying it. If they don’t like what’s going on, stop clicking on the thread.

I, personally, am shocked to see how long it’s gone on. Says something about some of the posters who are insisting upon posting there, in my mind. :rolleyes:

As for the question posed by LSLGuy in the OP:

When you can give me an example of “weaponized attack content” for a message board like this, then we can actually begin such a discussion.

9

What would the hypothetical note say? Not in this case, but others, I’ve considered leaving a note of some kind but have refrained for lack of clear and specific instruction.

In any event, the problem with someone being wrong on the internet seems like it may be intractable. The people desire to engage demonstrates an interest in the discussion. Lack of interest would see the thread fade, and since there is a rule about content-less bumping, that problem would resolve itself.

10

Not if said poster has craploads of “content” that she/he is willing to post, treating it like a blog.

11

Since he acted correctly in moving the discussion to GD (and I was frankly surprised that he was perceptive enough to do so) I don’t see how a note would be required.

Unfortunately (IMO) it’s pretty near impossible to get all members to drop out of a thread like that one even when further discussion with the OP is obviously pointless. But in my experience they eventually do burn themselves out. If a poster continues to bump a thread after everyone else has dropped it, the thread could be closed on the grounds of “obsessive posting on a subject.”

Generally, we a reluctant to prohibit any subject of discussion (short of hate speech, illegal activity, etc). We are referees for discussions; it’s up to posters as to how or whether to participate in a discussion.

12

A slightly different perspective: my physics knowledge is not where I wish it were. (I was a poli-sci/environmental studies/lit dude in college; ask me about Locke or about federal organic standards or about proper comma placement, not about F=MA). A thread like that has a grim subject matter, but I find the posts about the interplay between inertia, acceleration, and mass to be really interesting, and I’m learning something from nearly every poster who’s not the OP. I appreciate the work y’all are doing, even if the OP can’t.

13

Please do not post multiple threads in different forums on the same subject.

I just checked the time stamps, and he started the GD thread around 2PM, but was still posting in the GQ thread around 8PM the same day. I think it’s likely that a newbie such as he would be unaware of the rules concerning this, and a mod note would do no harm other than educating him on what the rules are.

14

He didn’t do that.

If anything, I would have instructed him to start a new thread in GD if he hadn’t done so already. But I was just glad to have the excuse to close the one in GQ.:wink:

15

QFT

16

I don’t think that would be workable. There are often overlapping threads of similar topics in different forums that people contribute to. Multiple threads started, maybe. But simply posting to an existing thread on a similar topic is fine. If the topics are essentially the same we can merge them, but that’s not always the case and that instruction is too broad.

17

I think we need to be a bit careful about policing what the actual discussions people are getting involved in are. Colibri mentions above that they are unwilling to police subjects short of the long standing rules on illegal activity and what have you, and the fact is that people who want to post in these threads are entirely entitled to do so, and no one is forced to read them.

I’m not sure what you mean by “weaponised attack content”, but people respond by explaining, with more or less degrees of patience, why they are wrong. That is the best thing we can do, I think.

18

You’re never going to change anyone’s mind if they are not open to the possibility of change. Write off people like Jay Jay; you’re never going to convince them.

But imagine some other person. I’ll call him Kay Kay. Kay Kay has heard about 9/11 conspiracies but isn’t aware of what they say. Kay Kay is open to being convinced either way. So Kay Kay goes online and starts looking for information on 9/11 conspiracies.

Kay Kay is your target audience. If Kay Kay hits upon this thread you want them to see both sides of the argument, not just Jay Jay’s posts. You want Kay Kay to see the debunking of the conspiracy alongside the conspiracy.

19

Actually, 'twas more than one. IOW …

The Illuminatus! made me do it. :smiley:

======
Ref Little Nemo’s cogent comment just above:

And there is the nub of the dilemma. Collectively we either let them spew without rebuttal or we feed the trollish behavior. Which is IMO real close to “heads they win; tails we lose.”

Which is part of why I raised this whole topic. I’m pretty anti- about Thought Police. But there’s something morally and pragmatically troubling about them being able to call our tune on our stage in our building.

Recognizing that “we” and “our” is a sorta fuzzy concept as between TBTB and us participants. Maybe our community just has to endure a certain amount of driveby graffiti. But when does “harmless graffiti” rise to “active vandalism”? And what would/could we do about it?

Some folks’ approach to these sorts of dilemmas is to refuse to think about doctrine and instead just handle cases as they come up. That’s not my style; prior planning prevents piss poor performance is more my style. Not that my style has to carry the day; merely that that’s where I’m coming from in raising the issue at all.

20

Exactly how I see it.