Where did I bring up insulting him?
What if you told him his presence was not wanted and to go away, and he didn’t go away? Allowing you to do this would not solve the problem.
I mean, this is real life. We’re talking via screens instead of sound waves, but this isn’t Oz.
Are you asking how I (or LSLGuy) would handle someone spouting dangerous nonsense in a face-to-face setting? It depends. If it’s walking down the street, I’ll handle it by walking away. If it’s a party at someone’s house, I’ll move away from them, and eventually maybe talk to the host and say, “Dude, I don’t want to be an asshole, but uh who’s that guy?” If it’s in a theatre during a play, I’ll look for an usher.
And if it’s a face-to-face setting where everyone there has agreed to follow specific rules before they’re allowed in the space, and where those in the space are encouraged to speak with the hosts if someone isn’t following those rules, and if people are regularly ejected from the space for not following the rules, I’ll speak with the hosts if someone isn’t following those rules.
Right. And as I’ve said, the poster in question has not been violating specific rules, or at least if he has these have not been reported to me. We don’t have a rule against arguing badly.
Neither does letting him know ahead of time that others cannot tell him that he is not wanted. Now that we have established the different ways the problem cannot be solved, what might an actual solution be?
I’ve already told you multiple times. Report actual rule violations; ignore him; or don’t engage him.
…the deliberate posting of dangerous misinformation about masks and only posting in the Quarantine Zone should have been more than enough to have gotten him topic banned ages ago. The precedent was set here by the banning of Huey Freeman who was banned for doing much less than this. Huey didn’t break any specific rules. If you can do that, a topic ban for having an obviously dangerous agenda isn’t much of a stretch.
What about the handy precedent? IIRC, he was banned from GQ (and eventually banned altogether) for consistently posting incorrect info in GQ. Is that accurate? Does that apply here?
It could. Please report instances of posting demonstrably false health information. Those could be actionable. But make sure it’s factually incorrect.
As much as people have complained about this, I am actually surprised how few specific reports I have had of it.
Fair, and thanks.
Colibri, could you clarify this apparent contradiction?
~Max
I mean don’t make me verify that the information is factually incorrect. If you can demonstrate that it is, then please provide a reference in your report. I don’t want to moderate on the basis of a report that something is incorrect and then have to backtrack on it. If it is actually in dispute, don’t report it.
I agree. As OP of one of the threads in question, it’s pretty much what I have been doing.
j
…I mean, this is the problem, is it not?
The consensus of almost every single government and health agency is that masks help reduce the risk of transmission of Covid. When I looked I couldn’t find a single government health agency that didn’t have that advice.
But that doesn’t mean that a determined person couldn’t put up an effort to “scientifically” argue against masks. Which is the tactic used by Say Two in QZ. Its a disingenuous tactic. And something that one could typically get away with in Great Debates. But lives are at stake here, and Say Two’s agenda has been blatantly obvious for a long time now. Allowing him to disingenuously argue against lockdowns and masks and school closures gives a platform to dangerous misinformation during a global pandemic that has killed thousands and affected millions. I’m pretty skilled at being able to shut him down in debate: but I really shouldn’t have to. We shouldn’t be giving him a platform.
The counter argument to this, as I mentioned above, is that it provides an opportunity to refute information that is already in wide circulation. People aren’t really coming to this site for authoritative information on the disease. They should be checking official medical websites.
As has been said, the Fight against Ignorance sometimes requires the presence of the ignorant to fight against.
…but that only works as long as people can be bothered engaging him. That takes the burden off you and onto people like me.
No it doesn’t. It really doesn’t. This isn’t funny, and a winky smiley really isn’t appropriate.
Like I said, you are not contractually obligated to proved someone is wrong on the internet. And you don’t really have to argue interminably once you have made your point.
While the Dope is a valuable resource, many people seriously overinflate its importance in the grand scheme of things. We are basically a recreational site, and a fairly small one, not an official source of authoritative information.
…but I think that the moderators of this messageboard have a responsibility to limit deliberate disinformation during a global pandemic that has killed thousands and affected millions. We can all stand down if you like and hand the Straightdope over to the covid-deniers if thats what you want. Is that the endgame here?
With all due respect I don’t need a condescending lecture about where the straightdope fits in the world. I am not “one of those people.”
I don’t know how many times I can repeat this: if you see factually incorrect information report it.
I don’t think this kind of offensive allegation really deserves a response. If you want to have a discussion about moderation, keep it respectful. Nothing I have said implies anything of the kind. We don’t need over the top accusations of ill intent here. Some posters are prone to making the false argument that if we allow discussion of a subject, we therefore support it.
So, for example, if I want to report that a specific post is factually incorrect, ideally it should be like this:
I think this post violates rule 7 “Guesses, WAGs, and speculation” because the topic is one of a factual nature and the post includes a counterfactual claim X contradicted by Y.
But I’ve been reading SayTwo’s posts and he usually doesn’t make factual claims in factual discussions. Rather he weighs in on broader, non-factual topics with broad non-factual claims.
For example, look at the current conversation in the QZ topic “Am I missing something here? (re: reopening of bars, etc… now)”.
Post #1314, SayTwo writes “I think the science is coming around to a consensus that the closures are no longer worth it.” This is technically a claim about SayTwo’s thoughts, which means it is literally impossible for me to verify. Even extending the claim to “science is coming around to a consensus that closures are no longer worth it”, that is a very broad claim, based on inductive reasoning, very difficult to definitively prove or disprove.
But I don’t think the main problem is the claim, it seems to be the way SayTwo defends it. This is an excellent example of his argumentative style:
Post #1316, BanquetBear asks SayTwo whether it was wrong for the UK and Sweden to close their schools. This is a clear attempt to poke holes in SayTwo’s argument about scientific consensus. He insists that SayTwo answer this question before continuing the discussion, post #1318.
Post #1319, SayTwo writes “I can’t answer it because I can’t find a cite for it. Might you have one I could borrow?”
Post #1321, BanquetBear reminds SayTwo that the question goes to the heart of SayTwo’s argument about scientific consensus, and implies that SayTwo should have an opinion already.
Post #1322, SayTwo pleads ignorance and admits to having no opinion on whether the UK or Sweden were wrong to close their schools.
Post #1324, BanquetBear points out that SayTwo can’t make the general argument in #1314 since he/she is ignorant of the specific contexts in countries like the UK and Sweden.
It’s bad argument form and I think, after pleading ignorance of the specifics, this approaches “wild speculation” that GQ rule 7 is supposed to prohibit. Is QZ supposed to be a place where laypeople can just speculate about lockdown measures, or is it supposed to be a place where people can receive informed/expert opinions about the pandemic?
~Max