Fauci - Rand Paul Thread

How is this not a straight-up admission of trolling?

Can you explain your theory more as I can’t follow?

I don’t interpret it as trolling or an admission of such. I think he’s commenting about the thread in P&E being political gamesmanship. I don’t agree, but we don’t moderate opinions for disagreeing with ours.

That’s okay. If you don’t see it, I don’t think I can convince you.

For the record, I agree with you.

The poster in question is simply repeating obvious bullshit with the express purpose of goading other people into intemperate responses. He’s ignoring factual information presented to him, and ignoring other pertinent questions. Merely repeating the same utter crap again and again.

He’s not that stupid. He’s doing this deliberately, and with purpose.

It’s unacceptable.

I’ll try this again.

So I think what people miss when they’re upset by lack of modding in a GD or P&E thread especially is you are often heavily invested in said thread and the mods are coming into it cold.

To review the 31 posts (of 228 total posts) by Magiver without more guidance than “he’s Trolling” is an unreasonable expectation. Someone want to flag and point to 4-5 posts and show us how he is trolling, and we’re far more likely to do something about it. At a glance, I see no trolling, I see someone arguing an unpopular point.

Whereas a flag that says, this post is attacking the poster and not the post, is pretty cut and dry.

This is exactly why I asked Mighty_Mouse for more clarification as I know very well I might have missed something.

Yup. I’m agreeing with you. If reading the last dozen or so posts by Magiver is too much to expect, there isn’t anything I can do.

I’m not saying this is bad moderation. Magiver is a skillful troll and you guys have to worry about conservatives playing the martyr card.

As it is often said, the trolling is in the pattern of behavior, not the individual post.

So, yeah, showing how a particular post is trolling is an unreasonable expectation. The pattern of repeating points that have been demonstrated to be false would require actually reading the posts and their context.

FTR, I don’t know if it crosses the line into trolling if he is simply ignoring what others are saying, and simply keeps repeating the same thing over and over that others have demonstrated to not be true, but it is absolutely derailing and the antithesis of useful participation in a thread.

But we don’t really expect the moderators to be able to decide whether something had been proven to be untrue.

Not in P&E anyway.

So from what I can see having wasted 14 minutes of my day, Magiver revived the thread after 3 months with a post vaguely on topic.

He used the word “lie” which led to twice as many posts in this thread as before he posted. But while you and I might disagree with his interpretation, there is nothing I see against the rules and nothing that crosses the line into trolling.

However as the thread is now completely off subject I will shut the problem down.

So, he derails it, takes it off subject by repeatedly insisting that Fauci lied, which is demonstrably false. Continuing to repeat that after it is demonstrated that his claim is false. Then gets it shut down.

A provocative statement like, “He’s also not supposed to lie about things like masks” that implies that he did is going to get people to respond to show that he didn’t. When evidence is ignored, and the claim is repeated in the face of evidence, people do tend to get heated.

Getting another poster to draw a warning and getting the thread shut down was the entire game he was playing there. He even straight up said that it was he was just playing political gamesmanship.

Well, chalk another win up for the trolls. At least someone is still enjoying the board.

Did you miss the part where he revived a thread 3 months old? He didn’t shut down an active thread. His one word is why that thread was active.

No, I didn’t miss that part, and that is irrelevant. That he reactivated a 3 month old thread to make unsubstantiated claims, and continue to repeat those claims in the face of evidence presented that demonstrates the falseness of those claims has no bearing on why he reactivated a 3 month old thread to make and continue to repeat unsubstantiated claims.

His claim that “This was a sports-politics thread from the beginning.” is an admission that this was all a game to him, and that he had not intent in taking it seriously, but was instead, just trying to score some points on a subject that others actually take seriously.

Anyway, like I said, at least the trolls are enjoying the board these days, becoming far less enjoyable for the rest of us.

His posting style reminds me of DIogenes to be honest, and most of Dio’s biggest thread derailments never got him in trouble, I think he ultimately got in trouble because he couldn’t control himself in general. But Dio’s main posting style was to say something either wrong or just inflammatory, and then no matter what was said in response, he’d just keep repeating himself over and over. No discussion would really be advanced, people would spend time rebutting him over and over again, and he’d just repeat the same stuff. I remember mentioning years ago that people should just stop responding when someone clearly is just intending to keep repeating themselves; but it’s a type of behavior that most posters cannot seem to tolerate or ignore. I noticed Magiver doing this pretty quickly in some of the Afghanistan threads, and just ignored all of his posts in those threads after that, it made the threads more pleasant to participate in and made him look silly because he kept trying to engage with me and I just didn’t respond.

A big difference between Dio and Magiver as far as I can tell is that Dio was like a split personality poster, he had a lot of high quality posts and interesting insights on a lot of things, I frankly have not directly observe Magiver making an argument I find interesting, or even just sharing an opinion I find interesting, in any thread ever.

As a matter of board rules I think it’s hard to regulate someone simply “repeating themselves”, which is why I have always suggested people just not engage with it, but it seems like something people just can’t do–it’s really obvious here when a thread had been dead for months and suddenly explodes in activity because someone is daring to be “wrong on the internet” in the thread, and is then daring to “repeatedly be wrong.”

Doing the here’s-what-I-believe-and-nothing-you-say-will-convince-me-otherwise thing is annoying, but I don’t consider it “trolling”.

I think there were factual rebuttals in the thread that served a useful purpose, and I’m content to leave it at that.

Meanwhile there are plenty of other people being wrong on the Internet. :smiley:

Yeah, I don’t quite consider it trolling either, it’s also just how a lot of people naturally communicate–in fact my experience in general is a lot of people will never alter their positions on a topic in real life, regardless of arguments made. I think it just angers people more when they encounter it on these forums.

I find the selective quoting to be egregious.

Multiple times in that thread he would quote one bit of my post, react to it, then act like I hadn’t written anything else. Here’s an example:

I start my post by addressing the claim that other countries were wearing masks at the beginning of the pandemic when Fauci wasn’t recommending the same. I pointed out that they were wearing masks already because in the past they were heavily hit by respiratory diseases that didn’t affect the US in the same way. I go on to address the rest of his argument.

He responds with this:

He quotes part of my post, and ignores the part explaining the discrepancy between the advice about masks and what other countries were doing. Then repeats his gripe about the discrepancy as if I hadn’t refuted it.

Let’s say someone complains that red apples are poisonous and overpriced, and you respond with an article showing the safety of red apple consumption and the relative price of red apples to other kinds. They then quote you talking about the price, and counter with their own price comparison, and ignore your argument and cite about safety, and repeat that they are poisonous. How is that not trolling? Especially when the behavior is pointed out to them? So it’s not like it was a mistake. And he did this repeatedly. It’s why I left the thread.

It’s blatant and shouldn’t be ignored,

Did you report incidents like that? I almost never read QZ myself.

It’s a time-dishonored Dope tradition to respond to part of someone’s post (especially what one perceives as the weakest part), while ignoring the part one doesn’t want to address.

If that becomes a bannable offense, then it’ll get very quiet around here.

There’s nothing about the rest of your post that changes anything. It was a respiratory disease and the best advise early on would be to wear masks. It’s really that simple and no amount of spin changes that. The US NEVER went to N95 masks for public use. The vast majority of people wore the pleated masks or cloth masks.

It was in P&E just FYI (not that it’s all that relevant). I didn’t report them because I didn’t know how to make it clear in a report. It’s blatant but not obvious (not unless you follow the whole back-and-forth). I also don’t blame anyone for not taking action because as I said it isn’t immediately obvious.

I probably should have reported it instead of just griping in the Pit, I am sure if I couldn’t make a case in the report I could in PMs.

You’re not ignoring something if you keep bringing it up. The way he did it was a performance. It is very clearly trolling. Especially with the later confession that he was treating everything as a political sport. If a person is trolling, then basically says “oh none of this matters because I’m trolling”, and you just lock the thread when the disruption from trolling is too much, aren’t you condoning the trolling?