Pot, kettle.
Most of us are kettles.
Agree 100%. There are 3400+ active members, how can BigT claim to speak for most of us?
Do you understand the meaning of the word “essentially”?
An inflammatory political rant purposely posted in GD* is *trolling.
BigT has my proxy.
But I’m pretty sure kayaker is a pot, if memory serves.
I’m not against moving threads to the Pit but maybe a mod note to the effect of “don’t post rants with no argument in GD or Elections”, so at least you can justifiably warn them if it turns into a habit.
I, for one, [DEL]welcome our new insect overlords[/DEL] agree with the crux of BigT’s post: I don’t think Jonathan Chance addressed an accusation of trolling in the OP. He appeared to address a straw-man argument. I don’t think he was being disrespectful in doing so. I don’t think MrDibble made an accusation of trolling for Jonathan Chance to rebut.
And if he did, I think it would be wise to pretend that he didn’t.
~Max
I’ve erased 3 separate jokes here. I’ll leave it alone.
I don’t know the official definition of trolling, but I concur that it seems “trollish” to post something you would know was inflammatory, backed by no argument, in Great Debates – and then not engage in any debate. Coming back to ignore questions and just restate the inflammatory thing, again with no actual argument.
It seems like a stretch to me to see that and think, oh, bless, he just accidentally posted a rant in GD, and then came back, and was so full of rant that he didn’t ask for it to be moved, or change tactics and just engage the debate, he could only keep repeating his OP “rant.”
Again, I’m not saying anybody has accused EasyPhil of trolling, but if they had, it is worth noting that EasyPhil did not make any posts on this message board between the original post of that thread (9:09am my time) and Jonathan Chance’s move to the Pit (10:35am my time). An hour may not be long enough to determine that EasyPhil isn’t interested in debate. Using his comments or continued participation after the thread was moved to the Pit as an indication of being disinterested in actual debate doesn’t seem fair, either.
I personally like to create debate threads with nothing but the question and sources in the original post. That way the thread itself isn’t all about me and my opinion (it usually ends up doing that anyways, unfortunately). In a separate post I post my opinion. But unlike EasyPhil, I try and keep my opinion out of the original post, too.
ETA: Also, “What is a troll?” on the Straight Dope Archives
~Max
One may find this type of start a decent approach to launching a debate, but the idea of ‘great debates’ involves making more effort so as to at least clarify the framework for the discussion. Scanty OP’s don’t make ‘great debates’ material, in my opinion.
I agree.
~Max
I’ve started GD threads about things I’m uncertain about like this or this or this. But it’s more than a link: it’s giving some background to an issue, possibly with a link, and setting up the issue to be discussed, often with some of my thoughts and why I’m uncertain.
That is, I think, way different from the “Vague link and over-the-top assertion” method that’s being criticized here.
Agree with this, too. But if EasyPhil had instead posted an op like this, I think the thread would have been fine for GD:
Is Adam Schiff a known liar? Should he be removed as head of the IC?
*Has Adam Schiff been proven to be a liar? Has Schiff’s memo rebuttal to Nunes’s memo has been shown to be false thanks to the IG report?
There’s no excuse if Schiff did lie, he had access to the same information as Nunes which means he knows better but still lied to the American people. If he lied, Schiff has no credibility and should be removed as the chairmen of that committee.*
And then one of the first responses, I imagine, would be:
No and no. Why would you think he lied?
After which the burden is on the OP or any white knights to argue that Schiff was a liar.
~Max
I didnt say “all” or “most” posters have been saying it, but yes, some have, right here in this thread, in fact.
That’s not how Great Debates works. Many people hate it when the OP doesn’t give their own opinion.
For one thing, not doing so makes it a lot easier to use “Oh, I was only playing Devil’s advocate” or “I was Just Asking Questions” when called out for an odious OP.
Actually, I think it would have been fine for Elections.
Oh, yes, I agree there. That post was out of place in GD. Bad Op for that forum.
But it wasnt trolling.
That argument is a bit ‘No True Scotsman’ isn’t it? One man’s troll is another man’s guru.