Fauci - Rand Paul Thread

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?

But I didn’t lock the thread due to disruption, I locked the thread when I realized the off-topic debate was all from 1 post that had revived a thread after 3 months of no posts.

I think a lot of regular posters in GD and P&E consider the Debates to be a bit of a game or sport. Those from all sides of the political spectrum. Though I’m not sure that is what Magiver meant in this case.

That’s fair. FWIW I support the locking of the thread (if that matters), I see it like re-burying a dead horse someone had dug up to poke at.

I just wanted to have my say here about why that thread upset me so much. I appreciate that we have this space to express our opinions.

Moderator Note

The post you replied to brought up the topic relative to the moderation of the P&E thread. I don’t know if you were attempting to respond to the accusation of trolling and the topic of how that should be moderated in ATMB, but your response appears to just be addressing the Covid topic itself, which is off-topic for ATMB.

Let’s keep the discussion in ATMB relevant to the rules and moderation, please. If you wish to respond to the Covid and mask issue instead, do so in the P&E thread.

I concur - we get a lot of people who latch onto an idea on a topic on which they have a particular axe to grind or gospel to preach and who just repeat their point over and over, beating it into a puddle of mucilage even long after it’s been thoroughly rebutted. I can think of half a dozen regular posters who do this, just off the top of my head.

Is it annoying? Definitely. Is it arguing in bad faith? Sometimes. Is it trolling? Hard to say. As such, I don’t blame the mods for not jumping on every instance of this, preferring to police the more obvious cases of deliberate provocation. And the odd topic or thread ban seems to help mitigate this sort of behavior from the more irrationally fervent.

Does this mean that some people posting with malign intent get away with it? Yup. But them’s the breaks.

You may have misunderstood magiver’s post.

Atamasama accused magiver - in this (ATMB) thread - of trolling. The basis for the accusation was that magiver responded to part of Atamasama’s (P&E) post and ignored the rest of the post. magiver’s response was that “There’s nothing about the rest of [Atamasama’s] post that changes anything”.

It was a perfectly on-point response (whether valid or not, I have no idea). If you consider accusations of trolling to be appropriate for ATMB, then it’s hard to imagine that responses to those accusations are not also appropriate.

Possibly. The first part of it seems as you’ve described, but then it seemed to me to veer off into a discussion about masks. If the intent was to respond to the accusation of trolling then that’s fine. Whether or not something is trolling is certainly an ATMB discussion. I just don’t want to continue a discussion from the thread in ATMB, which is something that happens fairly often.

If I misunderstood then I apologize.