To the Comedians who troll the Great Debates forum.

The BBQ Pit
121

While the OP might have thought he was being serious, usually in those cases he was also drunk, stoned, or terminally stupid. I haven’t seen many seriously-intentioned threads derailed because of a few humorous quips.

On the other hand, based on my own experience of your own technique in a couple of “debate” threads in which we have both participated, you’re not exactly a shining example of responsible behavior. You spout bullshit which you are unable to back up with cites (as you are doing here), you continue to reiterate points which have already been refuted by other posters without producing additional evidence of your own, and you vehemently argue against viewpoints which no other poster in the thread has supported. Personally, I think this kind of obnoxious behavior is far more pernicious than an occasional quip (which I don’t think is actually a problem at all). Posters like you are a big reason why I rarely get involved in GD; it just isn’t worth the aggravation.

122

A personal favourite of mine. The very first reply set the tone, and we went to town soon after. I’m glad to say I did all I could to keep the hijack going.

123

You can still link to locked threads. Why don’t you do so?

124

But you see- it’s just your opinion that suchandsuch a thead isn’t “seriously-intentioned”. If the OP thinks it is, isn’t that enough? I mean if you really think the OP is “drunk, stoned, or terminally stupid” can’t you just refrain from posting and let the thread die whatever death it deserves to? isn’t that better than being a rude jerk and hijacking his thread, no matter your opinion of it? Yes, Moderators can and do close stupid threads. If you think it’s so damn stupid it needs to be shut down, then hit “report this post”. Don’t play “junior moderator” and decide on your own to try and shut a thread down with a “ha-ha-funny hijack”. I agree- I think many threads are inane, and then I just hit the “go back one page” button.

However- I DO back up my assertions with cites. There are two cites for this assertion right up there. Just because you don’t agree with my cites, or are unable to refute them, doesn’t somehow magically make them not cites.

And yes, I often take the minority viewpoint, or even the lone viewpoint. I like underdogs, I like playing the devils advocate. Both are respectable postitions to take- unless you are somehow saying that the majority rules around here, and dissent is wrong?

Lute- the fact that Moderators do indeed *ask *for cites does not mean that giving a cite is somehow mandatory upon request. Staff are also posters, and can post, give their opinions, and ask for cites- all without making their posts authoritative.

125

Where has anyone claimed that cites are mandatory in any forum?

126

If it’s politeness you want, then the Straight Dope is really not the place for you. The Master is merciless with the drunk, stoned, or terminally stupid; there is certainly no reason the Teeming Millions can’t poke some fun at them (within forum rules, of course).

You seem not to comprehend the concept of “backing up” an argument. Your cites are supposed to actually support your statements.

Trolling is against the rules, and it sounds like that’s what you are saying you do.

127

Point of order.

“Playing devil’s advocate” != trolling.

128

Maybe I misread that post, and maybe I misread this: “Hey asshole maybe you have not heard but we* require* cites for any factual allegations even in the Pit.” Italics mine.

Thank you andros. :cool:

129

Yep. You misread that. Ask yourself this question: who is the “we” in askeptic’s post?

Speaking of which, are you going to link to one of these incredibly common threads that have been hijacked to death by jokes soon? The ones that you keep saying everyone knows exsist? I can show you how to make links in your post, if that’s what your problem is.

130

Well, **askeptic **can likely answer that question. You can’t. I already asked myself that question, but like I said- maybe I misread it.

Already did, I gave one link, and as I said the OP of this thread gave an excellent link, which is also a cite. You can cite without a link you know. But I see- you’re going to play that game. I give a cite, you ignore it, and demand more. No thanks. Bye. :wally

131

Not if you indicate that is actually what you are doing. However, pretending that you support a position that you actually don’t believe in, without indicating that you are arguing just for the sake of argument, can be considered trolling. In the arguments I have had with DrDeth, he did not give any indication he was playing devil’s advocate.

132

I disagree. Trolling is not done for the sake of argument; it is done for the sake of antagonism. I can easily imagine arguing the merits of a position I don’t personally believe in, if I feel these merits have … well, merit. If my purpose is not to argue merits but simply piss people off, I’d rightly be considered a troll.

133

Well, if you think the point has merit, that’s OK. As I said, it’s fine to take the devil’s advocate position, just as long as you admit it.

Perhaps trolling is too strong a word. However, arguing a position you don’t actually believe in as if you did, especially when you do it as poorly as DrDeth has done in the threads in which I have participated with him, wastes everyone’s time. In my book it’s a much greater offense than a humorous hijack. DrDeth is certainly in no position to be the arbiter of good board behavior.

134

So you did. Fantastic! I totally missed that, for which I apologize. But now we actually have something to discuss!

So, let’s take a look at this thread. First of all, it’s a Pit thread, and we’ve been talking about Great Debates. No matter, beggars can’t be choosers and all that, right? So, let’s see where this hijack that squelches debate occurs. I presume you are refering to all the riffing on the “shiny asshole” bit, right? 'Cause looking at that thread, I see it doesn’t start… looks to me like Uvula Donor’s post, which is the first one I see that’s just making shiny asshole jokes. That’s thirty-five posts into a thread in which not one single person has agreed with the OP. So, okay, a hijack to be sure, but I don’t see how it “ruined” the thread, which seems to not have been headed anywhere as it was. Knowed Out’s pitting had already fizzled.

Besides which, the OP in that thread isn’t really trying to frame a debate, is it? Aside from a pretty basic, “This guy is stupid!” argument, that’s already been refuted about as well as that sort of argument can be refuted (Said refutation being, essentially, “No, YOU are!”) So it’s not really like there was a debate to be prevented by the comedy hijack, is there?

See, this is why cites are important. You make a claim that you’ve seen something. I’d never witnessed what you had claimed to be a common phenomenon, so I asked for an example, so I could make my own judgement call on what you were talking about. I’m not sure why this makes me an asshole. Why you didn’t just post your cite when you first asked for it, I have no idea, unless you knew your cites were going to be this poor. Would have saved us both a whole lot of trouble. I’d still have shredded you post, of course, but I’d have been polite about it, at least.

Yes, but again, it’s not a very good cite, is it? For one thing, the OP plays along with the hijack. Can’t really be a hijack if the person who started the thread doesn’t mind the thread’s new direction, can it? On top of that, your alleged thread-derailing hijack lasts for all of five posts, two by the thread’s OP, and one by a moderator explaining the joke after he fixed the thread’s title. There are nine subsequent posts that are entirely on-topic, the last two of them made today. The thread is still on the front page of GD, and still very much “in play.” Not only was the thread not hijacked, it still ain’t dead yet. This proves your claim… how, exactly?

Well, I did apologize for missing your link, and I do so again. I really have no idea how I missed it, except perhaps that it was still pretty early when I read that post, so maybe I wasn’t 100% awake yet.

On the other hand, your cites are inescapably poor. Your claim is that threads are often hijacked by people making jokes that prevent people from debating the OP. As evidence, you provide a pit thread that does not actually attempt any sort of a debate, and a GD thread that’s still active and on-topic.

Really, if this is the best you can do, I can see why you resorted to throwing insults instead of trying to actually prove your point.

135

I don’t agree the admission is necessary. If one wants to argue a position, why is it necessary to spell out one’s personal stance?

136

One should specify one is taking the Devil’s Advocate position before hand so one won’t look like a troll. One certainly should not repeatedly take controversial standpoints only to claim “I was only playing Devil’s Advocate” later or one will indeed be labelled a troll.

137

Doc certainly seems to be doing a good job of pissing people off in this thread, intentional or not.

138

Well, getting labelled a troll is not the same as being one. Certainly we’ve all seen enough frivolous accusations of trolling where the accuser simply disagrees strongly with the accused to the point of deep anger.

Pffft. He’s an amateur. I mean, arguing over the deep cosmic significance of cites? Puh-leeze.

139

Uh, banana?

140

I accept your apology. I myself apologize for starting the name-calling. That was immature of me, even though this is the PIT. I apologize for the “Asshole” comment. I did think you were baiting me there for a while, OK?

But- I did not limit myself to threads in GD, note. “Don’t we even have debates here? or in GQ? IMHO?”

Nor did I ever claim it was “common”. In fact, I thought it was fairly uncommon, and after research, I must admit it was even more uncommon than I thought. I will now even state that it’s a rare occurance. But rare or no, there is no reason to be rude. If you think the OP is not worth a serious reply (when they seem to be seeking one), then hit the back button. I still say that a hijack is rude, no matter how lame the OP.

However, now that we have exchanged apologies, I will now back out of this “debate” again. I thank you for your apology.