Very low-level. I gave up on the thread a couple of days ago. I’ll read some of the posts, roll my eyes, and move on elsewhere.
Also, you misinterpret my post in this thread. What I said in that one was not to suggest that the GD thread should be closed, but rather that it was probably unnecessary for posters to continue to refute Jay Jay for the benefit of newbies.
Anybody who isn’t a moderator has no responsibilities or duties towards this board. People are free to post or not post as they choose. I was just offering a rationale why some people might choose to engage in a thread like that.
I said people might want to present the evidence which debunks a bad claim. I didn’t say they needed to keep arguing until the other guy quit.
My own personal test is when I ask myself “Am I saying anything in this post that I haven’t already said in previous posts in this thread?” If the answer is no, I stop posting in that thread. If somebody didn’t listen the first time, they’re not going to listen if I repeat myself five times.
I agree with you that it’s appropriate to refute the arguments of a truther etc. But since you did reference Jay Jay, it’s worth noting that that thread has gone far beyond any additional need for refutation.
Again, to make my position clear, this is not to say the thread should be closed, just that there is no need for other posters to feel they have the obligation to keep posting to it.
OK, at the moment (12:45 AM EDT) the poster in question has now upped his posting rate to 102 posts per day (101.99, precisely), as far as I can tell all of them directed to the 9/11 conspiracy thread. So what do you think should be done? What do you think it’s doing to the credibility and usefulness of this board and the involvement of its members in actual useful discussions?
It’s not killing the board, to be sure, but it’s certainly disrupting it. Is there the slightest rational basis for letting this nonsense continue? I’m not going to impute motives to this guy, but if it’s attention he wanted, he’s sure getting it!
If I was king (cf.- Mel Brooks in History of the World Part I: “It’s good to be the king!” ;)) I’d close the thread and put a 9/11 conspiracy topic ban on this guy. Please tell me what we, as a board, or as a social medium, or as a society, or as anything at all, would lose by doing this? Conversely, if we did, we’d gain some sanity and keep the board from sliding into another conspiracy ghetto.
As of a couple of hours ago, Jay_Jay has been put on a restriction that he may not ask any more questions in his thread. He may only answer questions or make new statements. He has violated this at least once and received a warning.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20544227&postcount=969
I predict another warning and possible thread closure some time tomorrow.
A couple of nutty threads doesn’t hurt anything.
I’ll just point out what I did in a Pit thread the other day. Cosmoquest has two subforums for such topics, and have some very specific rules. Specifically, the proponent in question must directly and adequately answer any and all questions directed at them in a timely manner, they can only have one such thread going at a time, and “evasiveness will not be tolerated.”
Specifically:
IMNSHO, merely allowing for “witnessing” here, of whatever sort, without any set of rules akin to the above, is opening the board for precisely this kind of abuse.
If he’s the only one posting to the thread, and no one is engaging him, then the thread can be closed. The restrictions placed on him by Bone also are a way of dealing with it.
Nothing at all. I fail to see how one thread really affects that.
Not that I can see. It’s one thread in one forum. The only reason I’ve looked at it recently is because it’s referenced in this thread. I’m sure that a large majority of our users are unaware it even exists.
You might say the same for most of the threads in Thread Games. 
Quite a few of our posters seem willing and interested in continuing to engage him. It’s not for me to judge how people wish to entertain themselves.
As I said, the vast majority of our posters neither know nor care that he exists.
As I said, we in general prefer to allow free discussion of ideas (even stupid ones) and allow posters to engage or not as they wish. If you want to “gain sanity,” stop reading the thread. Probably less than one in a thousand threads here are of this kind; hardly a “conspiracy ghetto.”
I agree that people can choose to engage or not, and that Jay Jay should not be engaged with. My point was that MANTRAPHITLER argued with the same style of repeating nonsense, ignoring the contributions of others, and insulting expertise and AFAIK all of his threads, including those outside GQ, were eventually closed long before they reached Jay Jay levels. They reached a level of jerkdom that went far beyond arguing an unpopular opinion. Why is the same standard not being applied here? That’s my issue.
Was MANTRAP the person who talked about suicide, or the guy that was super existentialist? Topics on the latter tend more towards philosophical in my view - there just isn’t hard and fast factual basis for a lot of the positions advanced. That’s a different type of thing than a discussion about a real life event and the facts and circumstances around it. Keep in mind, GD is also the place for witnessing.
I don’t know if I should start a new thread on that aspect, but are there any rules about witnessing threads? Are the OPs supposed to engage with other posters in any meaningful way, or can they just continue on as if they were a preacher or guest lecturer and we are the audience?
Yeah, I could get behind some rules like that for conspiracy type posts. I’d like one where you have to bring something new. If not, then a mod posts a link to an old discussion where what they said has been refuted. If they post something new, we can have a new discussion. If not, the thread is then locked.
I think the current way hurts because an outsider would just see someone slapped around (as we’re not exactly polite after the 15,000,000th time) and think they weren’t really refuted. Something very calm and matter-of-fact that just links the best arguments would seem superior.
But, hey, some people do seem to actually enjoy this stuff. And I really don’t think people who are on the fence really come here to just look around. I think the best of what this does is show others of us the best responses for when we encounter these guys elsewhere. Other than that, it’s just doing what you enjoy.
I may not get why you enjoy it, but more power to ya.
Also, I have seen threads in GD shut down for going in circles and not addressing what people are saying before. It’s rare, but I’ve seen it. I believe by tomndebb.
MANTRAPHILTER started a grand total of two threads, both on physics (or purportedly so), and all his posts were in those two. One was in GQ, and closed by me after 103 replies. The other one was in IMHO, and closed after 470 posts after he began insulting other posters. Different topics, different forums, different mods. The circumstances aren’t exactly comparable.
Speaking for myself, if anything would drive me from this board it would be the constant whingeing about how having a thread like that one alive and kicking is somehow sending the board to perdition. I’ve had to back away from the Trolls R Us thread for that reason, and now my board experience is much better. Sanity is to be had by avoiding threads that make you nuts. Sanity is not to be had by expecting the board to be either idiot-free or a cozy corner of uniformity.
Nitpick: it should be “If I *were *king…” Subjunctive mood, expressing a wish or condition contrary to fact.
I enjoy the Trolls R Us thread, but to each his own. I like it for the same reason that I enjoy satire like the Borowitz Report – it uses humor to help us cope with some of the craziness that surrounds us. To consider it “whinging” seems to be sadly missing the point.
The rest of your comments and similar comments that have been made in this thread just leave me perplexed. If we’re not going to have standards of discourse, why bother to have any moderation at all? I can appreciate that one has to be cautious of starting down the path of moderating what can be discussed, but sometimes crazy is just crazy. I don’t think anyone asks that the board be a “cozy corner of uniformity”. There are lots of intelligent posters that I disagree with on all kinds of issues, and I’m content to make my point (or not) and move on. Doesn’t bother me in the slightest. But yes, total idiots bother me.
Anyway, kudos to Bone for stepping in and starting to address the thread in question here.
This is technically correct, but I feel I have to defend myself since I’m always criticizing everyone else’s grammar. This usage is typically associated with formal registers and I think could reasonably be considered excessively prescriptive in many informal or colloquial contexts. Other than in a set phrase such as “if I were you”, “was” is so commonly used as a subjunctive in informal speech that I maintain it’s established a de facto correctness. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. 
There are standards of discourse, just not the ones you want. I think the current standards are adequate.
Regarding the subjunctive mood, I confess to loving it and I find it very useful in my own writing and speech, formal and informal. I know it’s disappearing, and that’s one of the things in modern life that I find sad.
I, for one, am happy for the distraction from all the awfulness of Trump for the past day or 3. However, yeah, Jay_Jay isn’t going to learn anything so I think this:
…is a great idea! Send it to Thread Games!
I think you’re thinking of Machinaforce. Sent him to Thread Games too.