Innit? Makes those Moon landing conspirists look positively normal by comparison.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Well, if we are talking about the same thread, I called him a troll, and am as much an atheist as anyone can be.
[/QUOTE]
Me, too.
Well, I suppose I’m not as much an atheist as anyone could be. I was raised Catholic and I did believe in some form of theism (though I never believed in Jesus).
Badchad is a troll.
Religion is a delusion.
Der Trihs has excellent taste in books.
That’s all I’ve got.
[QUOTE=Frank]
Then why are you still here? Why aren’t you banned?
We can’t just say someone is a sock; we have to prove it. Neither can we ban people just 'cause we feel like it. Any banning of a long-time poster gets discussed, sometimes for days. None of us could turn rogue for longer than a day or so.
[/QUOTE]
Well, when I am banned, Frank, I won’t be in a position to explain it, will I? And until that point, I’m just being paranoid.
But seriously, I trust your system of requiring someone to prove that a poster is a sock, and I don’t really think that Tom cares so much about me and what I say and don’t say that he’d actually try to disappear me. If he could get away with it, I think he might, but it’s too dangerous to try.
I think it’s useful though that I keep you alerted to his tendencies towards abusing his Mod status in threads he’s participating in as a poster. You’re free to dismiss me as a paranoid, of course, and I’ll catch some shit from fly-by posters, but that’s a cost of doing business. I thnk he holds strong religious views and exercises much, much more energy in religious threads warning, harassing, nitpicking, requesting cites, trying to intimidate, labeling as trolls posters of an atheistic bent while allowing outrageous behavior from those who agree with his positions, and I’m bringing this to your attention which accomplishes two ends, whether you think I’m behaving like a jackass or a prince. One end is just to make you aware that my suspicions might possibly be true–I think eventually you’ll catch him doing something over the top, and you’ll tell him (behind the curtains, of course) to cut it out. Or else he’ll just behave less outrageously himself, out of fear that maybe someone might take my loopy rants a tiny bit seriously. If this makes him police himself a little bit, and behave a little more judiciously, like I think a Mod ought to behave, so much the better.
This merely costs me a little standing on the SD with such people as Jayjay today, and other Dopers on other days, and of course if I’m utterly wrong about Tom, then I suppose I’m damaging his reputation a little, which would be too bad. But since I’m so widely assured that no one takes my ranting seriously at this point, how much damage could I be causing Tom, if I’m wrong about him? (Which I don’t think I am.) Not so much, I hope.
[QUOTE=badchad]
While I thought his arguments could use a little pruning I think the gist of them was sound. As I recall he was insulting to groups, not individuals and certainly no more “inflammatory” than Der Trihs or myself. He started a lot of threads but seemed to back them up ably and was responsive to the nuanced arguments of his opponents. I don’t see any official warnings given to him, nor any statements that he broke any rules, so what gives?
If it makes anyone feel better, while I might desire a long argument I don’t have the time, I just want to hear the reason for his banning, if there is one.
PS, and while I’m here, since when did it become a moderator function to say what could and could not be discussed in a given thread so long as everyone was playing by the rules?
[/QUOTE]
I really don’t have time to read the rest of the posts on this subject, but did read “his” posts, and all I am going to say on this is:
ARE YOU KIDDING?!!!
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Well, everyone but me. And this is still the best site on the planet, even with that central flaw, but I do feel the need to point it out in the holy name of fighting ignorance.
[/QUOTE]
And although I don’t believe it (Christianity) is ignorance, I do believe in your right to believe it.
Rock on, heathen.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
exercises much, much more energy in religious threads warning, harassing, nitpicking, requesting cites, trying to intimidate
[/QUOTE]
This is dismissable silliness.
This is a lie.
I have “labeled” exactly one poster a troll who happens to be atheist. When I did so, I pointed out exactly the non-belief-related actions that I considered trolling.
Given that I have engaged many atheist posters in both pleasant and more adversarial discussions without labeling any of them trolls, your assertion is little more than calumny based on your own imagination.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Tom could just pull the plug on both of us, you’d all believe it, and no one would ever be the wiser.
[/QUOTE]
I’m startlingly willing to take that chance.
Apparently Tom doesn’t think he needs to answer this, however he cited rules that I have been unable to find listed anywhere.
I don’t know if I would characterize any of the hijackings in question deliberate or not, but anyway…
Cite?
[/quote]
So Tom again, pretty please, with sugar on top, give me your fucking cite or admit you’re making shit up, lying or just plain don’t know what the rules around here are.
And Tom should you be able to cite something on this board demonstrating it is indeed against the rules to take a thread off topic, it will please me if you then admonish all the posters on this thread who are discussing things other than what I brought up in the OP. That’s fair right? Perhaps you could demonstrate you lack of bias as a mod by giving your first warning (official or not) on this thread to Polycarp who’s post #47 appears to have absolutely nothing to do with my OP.
Should Tom choose to remain silent, if some other mod is able to point out what are apparently multiple rules condemning going off topic in a thread, I’ll be happy to shut my trap.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I have “labeled” exactly one poster a troll who happens to be atheist. When I did so, I pointed out exactly the non-belief-related actions that I considered trolling. .
[/QUOTE]
And if there were the SLIGHTEST bit of fucking support for your wholly unwarranted bilious bullshit claim that he was a troll, you’d have grounds for banning him. Since you don’t in fact have that shred of support, you can’t ban him, and you’re left hanging out here, now admitting that you DID label an atheist a troll (thank you for being stupid enough to admit that without my needing to waste my day searching for evidence in your past posts!) without being able to support it to the satisfaction of your fellow Mods (or for that matter to anyone not currently inhabiting a loony bin). What a clown you are.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
And if there were the SLIGHTEST bit of fucking support for your wholly unwarranted bilious bullshit claim that he was a troll, you’d have grounds for banning him. Since you don’t in fact have that shred of support, you can’t ban him, and you’re left hanging out here, now admitting that you DID label an atheist a troll (thank you for being stupid enough to admit that without my needing to waste my day searching for evidence in your past posts!) without being able to support it to the satisfaction of your fellow Mods (or for that matter to anyone not currently inhabiting a loony bin). What a clown you are.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s note a couple of things here:
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Failing to slap down posters who repeatedly called Badchad a troll . . .
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Yeah, I’ll run out now and find you a cite for shit you know perfectly well.
[/QUOTE]
So, we start out with you lying that I have “failed” to discipline posters for calling badchad a troll even though you and I both know that no one has been allowed to do that in a Forum where it is prohibited, following which you lie that you are not going to waste your time looking for the (imaginary) support for your claim.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
My point is that “management” (in the person of Tom) is extremely selective in choosing to step into such discussions, almost exclusively to censure atheists while allowing Christians to call people “trolls” and such right and left.
[/quote]
We then move on to you lying that I permit posters to call any number of atheists trolls (when we both know you are making that up).
Then there is this bit of silliness:
To which I replied:
So, here you try to imply that I have “let” others call badchad a troll or that I have tried to claim that no one has ever called badchad a troll, (while your sarcasm is obvious, your intent is pretty muddy–as it needs to be to promote your lie). In response, I point out the actual conditions under which badchad has been called a troll in the Pit where it is permitted.
And, of course, you simply ignore this point, since it does not fit your agenda, so even though, to this point, we have been talking about other posters calling atheists trolls, you move on (referring to me) to:
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
labeling as trolls posters of an atheistic bent
[/QUOTE]
to which I responded, honestly
So, since you were not getting enough traction claiming that I was failing as a Mod by not enforcing the rule prohibiting calling persons troll outside the Pit, you switch to making the sweeping claim that I have called some apparently large number of atheists “troll.”
When I correct your false accusation, you then claim that I am stupid for posting the truth.
I have, indeed, labeled a single poster (who happens to be atheist) a troll, in the appropriate Forum, providing reasons for my opinion which had everything to do with his behavior and nothing to do with his beliefs or lack. Since he limits his activities to a very narrow range of threads, the rest of the staff have not come to perceive him in the same way and I have made no effort to lobby them to my perspective. In other words, despite the fact that I see him as a troll, I have made no effort to get him banned.
I find it interesting that you consider me stupid for honestly pointing out my actions when you apparently consider it more appropriate for you to lie about them.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Well, if we are talking about the same thread, I called him a troll, and am as much an atheist as anyone can be. We were not insulting him because we disagreed with him; that is simply a false statement. Or a lie. We were insulting him because he has the manners of a goat.
[/QUOTE]
In the interests of strict accuracy and fairness, I must disagree with the last seven words in your post.
[QUOTE=badchad]
So Tom again, pretty please, with sugar on top, give me your fucking cite or admit you’re making shit up, lying or just plain don’t know what the rules around here are.
And Tom should you be able to cite something on this board demonstrating it is indeed against the rules to take a thread off topic, it will please me if you then admonish all the posters on this thread who are discussing things other than what I brought up in the OP. That’s fair right? Perhaps you could demonstrate you lack of bias as a mod by giving your first warning (official or not) on this thread to Polycarp who’s post #47 appears to have absolutely nothing to do with my OP.
Should Tom choose to remain silent, if some other mod is able to point out what are apparently multiple rules condemning going off topic in a thread, I’ll be happy to shut my trap.
[/QUOTE]
Ahhh! The barracks lawyer ploy. We haven’t seen that in a little while.
The primary rule of the SDMB (with all the attendant complaints against it) is “Don’t be a jerk.”
Now, in any sort of discussion involving large numbers of people with disparate views, there will always be a tendency for sidebar discussion and a bit of wandering from the topic. If a sidebar catches the interest of enough posters that the general theme of the thread wanders off course, we know it as a hijack. However, hijacks can come in two flavors: there are the organic hijacks in which a particular point submitted as a clarification or an aside or an objection to a another’s point simply takes on a life of its own and then there are the deliberate hijacks in which some poster (or more than one poster) decides that their particular need to drown out the voice of the OP is sufficient reason to post things that are clearly off-topic (or are only tangentially related to the topic, but not really germane to the OP). In the latter cases, we generally recognize that such actions are a bit jerkish in nature and we ask the hijackers to desist. In some cases, either the hijacks are so blatant or sthe poster so resistant to correction that the hijacker is actually Warned for his or her behavior.
Warnings for hijacking threads have been issued on the following dates in the last couple of years (I see no reason to name the recipients of those Warnings, some of whom have otherwise behaved themselves admirably and some of whom have since been banned (De mortuis nil nisi bonum):
07-27-2004, 02:34 PM
11-22-2004, 07:04 PM
01-09-2005, 03:11 PM
03-26-2005, 01:13 AM
05-05-2005, 06:22 PM
07-26-2005, 09:18 AM
08-08-2005, 07:55 AM
10-06-2005, 07:13 PM
02-27-2006, 08:30 PM
11-20-2006, 05:08 PM
Since it seems to matter to some posters, I will note that the Moderators issuing those Warnings included both adherents of various religions, atheists, and persons whose spiritual views I do not know. I have not (yet) issued a Warning for hijacking, because most GD posters are sufficiently classy to desist when I have asked them to do so.
Isn’t deliberately hijacking threads to provoke a reaction pretty much the textbook definition of trolling?
[QUOTE=badchad]
He started a lot of threads but seemed to back them up ably and was responsive to the nuanced arguments of his opponents.
[/QUOTE]
Huh? Um. No he didn’t and no he couldn’t. I saw almost zero logic and nothing resembling reasoned discussion from that one.
As for the ‘Christian bias’ of the SDMB, I find if there’s any bias, it’s toward a rather self-satisfied atheism (but then most atheism is). Pro-Christian? Hardly. I’m seeing a great deal of ‘anyone who could believe in a supreme being is a moron.’ Which, tiresome as it is, luckily doesn’t appear in every thread so can be ignored. I don’t mind people not believing. I mind very much when they feel that makes them intellectually superior. But AS (an apt acronym if you draw that S out a little more) thought he was intellectually superior when he clearly couldn’t manage the simplest tenets of logical discourse.
No loss whatsoever, IMHO.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
In the interests of strict accuracy and fairness, I must disagree with the last seven words in your post.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you weren’t, but many of the atheists were.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Warnings for hijacking threads have been issued on the following dates in the last couple of years (I see no reason to name the recipients of those Warnings, some of whom have otherwise behaved themselves admirably and some of whom have since been banned (De mortuis nil nisi bonum):
07-27-2004, 02:34 PM
11-22-2004, 07:04 PM
01-09-2005, 03:11 PM
03-26-2005, 01:13 AM
05-05-2005, 06:22 PM
07-26-2005, 09:18 AM
08-08-2005, 07:55 AM
10-06-2005, 07:13 PM
02-27-2006, 08:30 PM
11-20-2006, 05:08 PM
[/QUOTE]
I found one from 7-21-2004 by using the search function, so if badchad still has doubts…
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Perhaps you weren’t, but many of the atheists were.
[/QUOTE]
Understood, but I disagree as a strict matter of fact that badchad has the manners of a goat. 
[QUOTE=Sublight]
Isn’t deliberately hijacking threads to provoke a reaction pretty much the textbook definition of trolling?
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. A poster could be so caught up in his or her notion of “truth” that he or she simply felt compelled to wrench the thread in the direction they felt was necessary rather than actually toying with the thread simply to get a reaction.
So deliberately hijacking does not immediately come under the heading of trolling–but insisting on a hijack after having its inappropriateness pointed out does come under the heading of being a jerk.
Tom, speaking of trolls, Badchad is a waste of your time and resources. Were you not pertinent to his present obsession, he would ignore you altogether. And now, having patiently answered his dumbass questions, you are going to find yourself the victim of a game of moving goalposts. Either he will pinch out a semantic nit — I asked for a cite that hijacking is against the rules, not that people were warned for it — or he will change his demand to something else — And what were the religious affiliations of those who were warned?. My suggestion: just let him go. Let him look like Madalyn Murray O’Hare with a fistful of sharpened pencils among a porch full of Christmas Carolers.
I agree with Liberal. This is so obviously just a widdle kid poking the bear with a stick, just to see the reaction. You’ve already answered his questions, which were bullshit when he posed them. Don’t give him exactly what he wants–your attention.