I’m with lissener. If there’s ever been a case where a poster-specific rule would be of great benefit to the Board, lekatt is it. He is like the GD equivalent of handy in GQ 7 years ago, and should be treated the same way.
My suggestion: Give lekatt one thread in GD. He can give it a name and write the OP. From that point on, that’s it - He posts in that thread and whoever wants to can debate him. If he posts in any other thread in that forum he is banned.
Does this mean when I walk past someone shouting about how the CIA is controlling him through his dental fillings, and I give him a wide berth, I am agreeing with him? Is that how you would take it?
People who are fool enough to agree with Lekatt will agree with him regardless of what anyone else posts. No one’s going to look at Lekatt’s posts and suddenly start believing in NDE’s because no one’s responding to him. People who respond to Lekatt do so because he enrages them and they can’t resist responding. Also it’s fun. It’s a way to get a fix of internet rageahol. That’s it. It’s fine to do so if he starts a thread, but it’s annoying when it derails someone else’s discussion.
Don’t look at him as a detriment to SDMB, but as comic relief. Ignore fodder. A way to keep us from getting too serious. A reminder we’re human. A mascot. Pet him on the head, scratch his chin and make sure he stays off the table and uses the litterbox.
ISTM that a better solution is to create a thread with common points/refutations of lekatt nonsense. Think of it as a Responding to lekatt FAQ. Whenever he starts a hijack, the only response should be to link to that thread. That way, special rules are avoided, the mods don’t have to make any judgment calls, no one needs to be banned, new posters are warned, and ignorance is still fought. In fact, if the mods would deign to not zombify the thread, it could be added to over time…perhaps even make it a sticky so it’s easy for everyone to find (and link to). The community-oriented nature of this appeals to me.
Of course, exactly due to its reliance on individuals’ posting habits, this is not very likely to work, as it requires fairly strict discipline by all respondees – and it’s just too easy to succumb to the desire to fight Teh Stupid and hijack a thread.
Google “lekatt” and you’ll see some other places he hangs out.
You might remember that a "lekatt’s hijacks " thread was made in GD once because he’d really hijacked a couple of threads at once. We really don’t like making rules that apply only to one poster. It’s definitely happened, but as a last resort only, so I’d prefer not to deal with that that way.
If posters want to link to some of his past posts and the rebuttals whenever he posts, that might be more effective.
We always have to pick our battles, really. I hate not challenging lekatt’s spew, but the time and energy people spend arguing with him, knowing he won’t listen anyway, could better be spent informing and responding to other people who actually are interested.
Marley23 I beg to differ. Like Czarcasm says, ignoring it is like letting the ridiculousness lekatt writes go unquestioned and therefore unchallenged.
IMO this is serious enough, and has gone on long enough, that a poster-specific rule is justified. With regard to the Boards’ stated purpose of fighting ignorance, lekatt’s behaviour is much more damaging than Reeder’s habit of posting lots of anti-Bush threads was. I hope you will consider introducing a poster-specific rule along the lines of the one I suggested in post #61.
You can make a legitimate case either way. But whether it’s the first time they’ve seen it or the 100th, nobody believes what lekatt says. Time spent on him is time wasted. Maybe one reply is enough, but the more responses he gets, the less productive the discussion is.
If there is someone who, by their very nature, never adds anything to any thread , ruins a thread should anybody reply to him and can, at best, be said to be useless when he is not actively detrimental… why is that not a banable offense?
It could be my love of free speech or my desire for self-preservation, but I’m uncomfortable with the idea of banning or severely restricting posters whose contributions “don’t add anything” to threads. If anything, I’d rather see **lekatt ** obligated to participate in the Pit, where his one-note dicta can be addressed in language most befitting.
To overextend Musicat’s metaphor, think of it as dragging the obstinately dysenteric pet out from under the bed to give it a direct and well-deserved smack.
I agree, LeKatt rocks.
I like him. But I’m another doper with a non-rational, spiritual side that I do discuss. I’m insane, I believe in Magick, I like LeKatt.
"It must have a natural cause.
It must have a supernatural cause.
Let these two asses be set to grind grain."
=A. Crowley (rhymes with ‘holy’.)
Because the board is not run to your standards, and he paid to post?
If he’s disrupting your life in any way, you’re giving him too much attention, I think.
Which gives the pet a NDE…
Nude doper experience? Nuclear deterrence Equation? Never Define expectations.
Sorry, I’m Acro-Numb today… What are you on about?
Near Death Eexperience.
Thank you. Eeek!-speriance.
I like that.
Personally I’m fascinated when someone immediately goes for the blatant strawman and then acts as if they’re made a point. Why would you do such a thing?
Kindly show me, anywhere, that I said it was ‘my standards’ that should be enforced, rather than the board’s already stated policy against being a jerk? (eg. at best never contributing anything positive and generally serving as a negative influence).
I’m sure if you approach it honestly, you’ll find that I did not say that people should be banned for not posting the way I like, but that a specific behavior made a poster detrimental to the board, in several mods’ own words.
Now, perhaps you can answer why being a jerk by constantly being a negative factor in any thread one participates in, if they’re not simply spamming it with irrelevancies that should be ignored, somehow merits being allowed to continue posting here?
What Digital Stimulus said at #64. I agree with **Czarcasm ** that you can’t just let the stuff go unchallenged altogether. **Lekatt ** posts with sufficient conviction and he links with sufficient confidence that someone less sceptical could be fooled into thinking his crap is actually accepted by the Millions if nothing is said in response. But challenging him actively (a) leads to a hijack (b) feeds **Lekatt’s ** needs © gives his arguments a kind of veneer of importance (why else are all these experienced and smart dopers fighting him so hard?). Every time he tries to derail a thread the only response should be a stock response, directing others to threads debunking his views and his posting style.
So you’re not left wondering what’s going on- SLK has decided to take a break from posting.
I’ve never seen any evidence for this. I can only remember one person significantly agreeing with lekatt in any argument, and it wasn’t because lekatt was so convincing or authoritative - they just happened to have the same outre views.
So you’re not left wondering what’s going on- SLK has decided to take a break from posting.
All I can say is, I think you’re overestimating how credible he appears. But if people believe he demands a response, I think one fairly standard reply will do the job. It takes two to hijack a thread, and that much can be avoided, at least.
Well then, perhaps you can answer. If there is someone who, by the mods’ own claims, never, ever contributes anything of value, and whose posts are always frustrating hijacks if they’re responded to… why is that person still posting here?
All we’ve heard, in terms of ‘official words’ on the subject is that at best, Lekatt is worthless, and at worst he’s an active detriment to any thread he posts in if people actually reply to him. Why isn’t he gone?