Subject:
|
Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Jan 2003 06:35:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
847 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> I fear your “lack of justification” argument against me has grown rather
> diffuse. Part of the problem is the lack of good evidence you have been
> willing to produce. The text in this post contains a quote that I said
> “contains a great unjustified opinion”. In a different post this week I also
> highlighted another unjustified opinion [actually a group of 3]. Can you
> offer similar evidence against me? If you can’t, can I not argue that I’m
> being victimised by you?
Well-- you could, but would that somehow prove that you didn't deserve it?
> > > > Alright then, I don't accept your perspective. I think it's a baseless
> > > > emotional response to Larry.
> > >
> > > You are entitled to that view. Do you care to justify it?
> >
> > Ok. You said it was a matter of perspective, not definition, thereby making
> > it your opinion. Hence, you rank the term "troll" as a qualitative value
> > rather than a definitive one. And because of your repeated dislike of Larry,
> > I think you held the view of it being a troll post because your opinion of
> > *Larry* is low.
>
> What makes you think I don’t like him? It may seem strange to you, but I
> actually respect him a great deal. He does worry me a little. He does often
> leave me feeling bemused. But I don’t dislike him. I’ve never even met the
> guy.
Alright then-- If that's the case, then it's my opinion that you didn't like
the implication of an attack on your person which is what you read into
Larry's post, and your reply was an emotional response to that dislike more
than a response out of rationale.
> > Not because of the post itself. Thereby making it
> > "emotional". Further, the only basis you've given is that it was your
> > "perspective", and that you 'felt it was in a manner consistant with his
> > posts', rather than citing *how* it was consistant or *how* it was a matter
> > of perspectives, even when asked *how*. Hence, "baseless".
>
> Perhaps I think it is clear how it is consistent. I assume you think it is
> not clear, or are you just being pedantic?
Some of the consistancy I see-- Larry's made posts of that sort before, and
yes, you are often on the receiving end of his points. But quite honestly
it's very different than some of the worse posts he makes about you, which I
would feel are possibly justifiably deemed 'trolls'. But that aside for the
moment, why is whether it's a troll or not a matter of perspective? Perhaps
you'd care to explain what you think a "troll post" is?
> > > > > After avoiding the question a number times, you now claim the question is
> > > > > invalid. I'll try again; Is that, on balance, good or bad?
> > > >
> > > > There is no balance point. There is no line to cross between "good" and
> > > > "bad". See my posts on relative morality.
> > >
> > > Why are you trying so hard not to answer such a simple question? Don't you
> > > like the answer?
> >
> > Does that mean you (finally) accept my answer that there's no answer?
>
> No, I was asking why you are trying so hard not to answer the question. You
> may not like the wording of the question, but you are perfectly capable of
> interpreting what was being asked.
? I interpret the question as you having a different outlook on morality
than me.
> > As for your new question, to put it in relative terms: have you stopped
> > beating your wife?
>
> I don’t beat my wife, and never have. You see; it is possible to fully
> answer a yes/no question without saying yes/no.
No no-- you DIDN'T answer yes or no. You invalidated the question. So did I.
There is no line between 'good' and 'bad', there's really only 'better' and
'worse'. And to that end I believe I quite clearly laid out the actions in
question in order of their moral standing on my moral-o-meter.
> > > > > > Wasn't it clear to you (and everyone else) what he had done?
> > > > >
> > > > > Was it clear to the LP?
> > > >
> > > > Was yours clear to Lugnet?
> > >
> > > With respect, you've not answered my question. BTW: Are you saying it was
> > > not clear what I did?
> >
> > It was as clear to the LP as your action was to Lugnet.
>
> I’d love to see you justify that comment. What was your general
> “lack-of-justification” case against me?
Who in the LP actually even saw the action? I'll put my money on nobody.
I'll bet that the form he submitted went to an automated process that
removed you from the list. To that end, the only area of the LP that
witnessed the event was likely some computer program-- which was exactly the
case on the Lugnet system. Who in the LP was unclear? Some guy looking at
log files? How about some guy reading Lugnet? Especially if they didn't read
your signature? My guess is more people were *similarly*, albeit
*insignificantly* unclear about your action than Larry's.
> > > > > > And didn't he apologize, upon finding out that you didn't indeed want to
> > > > > > be removed from the list?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't recall any apology being offered to me.
> > > >
> > > > I believe he did, though it was mixed in with self-defense.
> > >
> > > You'll have to give me a url for that.
> >
> > I'm a bit too lazy for that. If it were anyone but you and Larry, I might,
> > but there are so many posts by the two of you, it makes searching for such
> > things quite difficult. My recollection is that Larry admitted he was wrong,
> > said he was sorry for assuming your wishes, but firmly stood by his actions
> > insofar as he maintained that they were done "in good faith".
>
> So you’ve made an assertion based on a “recollection” which you now won’t
> substantiate. Can we consider the assertion null and void? What was your
> general “lack-of-justification” case against me?
Ha! That was cute :) Alright, I went and looked. It was suprisingly easy,
despite what I thought I might have to wade through:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=14855
Now-- to compare, I searched for nearly *3 hours* (albeit non-consecutively)
for the actual post where you spoofed someone's ID. Couldn't find it. Found
*mention* of it. That was about it. Anyway, if it took me that long again
for this point, I wouldn't have bothered with it either. It's not *that*
important to me. Anyway. Point-- he DID apologize.
> > > > > > As I said, shoplifting a paper clip is still shoplifting.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't disagree with that view.
> > > >
> > > > Again, conceeded!
> > >
> > > How so? Can one shoplift in good faith?
> >
> > I'm sure if the right situation came up, someone could.
>
> Example? What was your general “lack-of-justification” case against me?
Here's a simple one. (One in need of my own moral relativistic viewpoint, I
might add.) Bob is dumb. Forrest Gump dumb. Innocent, well-meaning, but not
really aware enough of certain social bits that others would pick up on. Joe
is a jerk. A jerk fully aware of Bob's flaws. Joe convinces Bob that if he
steals something from a store, the store gets more than reimbursed for the
item via insurance, and Bob and Joe can share a nice treat. Everyone's
happy. Bob never thinks about the insurance company, because, well, he
doesn't think that far ahead. He shoplifts "in good faith".
> > *I* couldn't, but then again, *I* couldn't "in good faith" forge my name the
> > way you and Larry did.
>
> Can one forge one’s own name? ;)
Huh?
> > > > > > > > Given that Larry admitted to you that he unsubscribed you, who was
> > > > > > > > confused about him unsubscribing you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Libertarian Party? The victims of Larry's fraudulent activity were
> > > > > > > myself & the Libertarian Party. One could argue that we are all victims,
> > > > > > > as IRC he broke the t&c of this site.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then can't I just argue back that you broke the t&c of this site by
> > > > > > posting fraudulently and that similarly we're all victims of your fraud?
> > > > >
> > > > > You could.
> > > >
> > > > Point #3 made and conceeded!
> > >
> > > You could also argue the moon is made of cheese. Perhaps it is:
> >
> > Are you implying that you didn't similarly break the t&c of this site just
> > as Larry did to LP's site, and that we are all "victims" by violation of the
> > t&c? Or are you saying that your argument was invalid to begin with?
>
> As I have said before, my action was undertaken in good faith
Ditto Larry.
> and with the best of intentions.
Ditto Larry.
> I have also offered a sincere apology.
Ditto Larry.
> > > > > > That topic's being dealt with, see above. But you haven't even attempted
> > > > > > to defend against my claim that your posts are often too unjustified.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given the examples you have furnished us with below, I can live with that.
> > > >
> > > > We're on a roll! Point #4!
> > >
> > > You are going to have to explain that one too.
> >
> > You said you could "live with that". Implication is you accept my point and
> > don't care.
>
> Is that the only implication, or merely the one you wish to state?
Would you like to elaborate on what you meant then?
> > > > But why call Larry's post a troll? As far as I can see it was an emotional
> > > > reaction from you, effectively calling Larry a troll.
> > >
> > > You are entitled to that view.
> >
> > Does that mean you don't disagree with that assessment?
>
> What do you think!
Well-- since you haven't explained what rational reasons you have to
consider it a "troll" rather than emotional ones (IE 'perspective'), I can
only assume that you don't disagree. But your tone repeatedly says otherwise.
> > > > > > > I am finding it difficult engage fully on this debate for two reasons:
> > > > > > > 1) My view is that that this thread was largely started by Larry as he
> > > > > > > felt I'd dented his ego in some way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not sure why this constitutes a reason for you not wishing to engage
> > > > > > fully.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where does your uncertainty lie?
> > > >
> > > > Why does how the thread *started* have anything to do with the points at
> > > hand?
> > >
> > > Is the context not important?
> >
> > No, it's not. If we start talking about cheese, and then somehow I end up
> > making a claim that stealing is immoral, does the fact that the conversation
> > started out with cheese affect the validity of the claim?
>
> I’m not sure I accept your analogy; do you care to justify it? What was your
> general “lack-of-justification” case against me?
What's an analogy you would accept? And why don't you accept mine? Could you
proffer one please? Some effort on your part to explain yourself perhaps?
Why does the initial context affect your volition to participate on a
completely different point?
> > > Would you say the discussions you have quoted are typical of the debates you
> > > 'd typify me as taking part in?
> >
> > I suppose so.
>
> You’ll have to justify that. What was your general “lack-of-justification”
> case against me?
? Didn't I answer your question?
> > > > As for "best", I searched for "+Scott +Arthur" in o-t.debate. The first few
> > > > posts all yielded examples, but they were from recent threads, so I listed
> > > > a few of them, then jumped ahead. I could easily turn up better examples
> > > > I'm sure, but why bother when you can't even defend the simple, recent
> > > > ones?
> > >
> > > Do you think I could find ones of equal merit for other users?
> >
> > Probably.
> >
> > > What would that prove?
> >
> > That some people also need improving.
>
> So why focus on me?
Didn't I answer that already? Like 3 times at least? I admit I didn't count.
> > It would also help validify the point
> > that you were attempting to lower the bar to make yourself appear less
> > imperfect.
>
> I don’t agree with your form of words. All I’m trying to say is that if
> others are committing greater misdemeanours, why focus on me? Is this, even
> in a very small way, related to the views I hold and not the way I state
> them? Do you think Larry would be less critical of me if I agreed with him a
> little more? What if I agreed with him a lot more?
Really? Is that what you think this is about? Not in the least. The last
time I really debated with you was like pulling teeth:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=11309
It's spilling over with examples of self-contradiction, lack of explanation,
etc, that is MOST DEFINITELY the subject at hand. I couldn't care less what
your particular views were. It really honestly is ENTIRELY about the manner
in which you present yourself, not in your opinions themselves.
> > Not that I
> > think which is worse matters, really-- I think both issues should be
> > rectified, regardless of which is worse.
>
> So there are no priorities then? Tackling me in this group is preferable to
> dealing with [say] someone who steps on toes right across this forum?
For me, yep. Of o-t.debate regulars, I see you as the worst offender
usually. One particular point evidenced right here, and that's some sort of
unbending 'pride' attitude. There's a bit of snippy pride or something
that's often present in your posts. In this case, you're ever so eager to
turn yourself away from being the subject, as though it were relevant to the
point.
> > Nah, I don't think it's much of a matter of perspective. I'd say trolls are
> > defined by the intent of the author, IE to instigate a response by means of
> > evoking a negative emotional reaction in a given target. Just because you
> > took it badly doesn't mean it was intended as such.
>
> Does it mean the contrary?
Contrary how? That if you took it badly that it DOES mean it was intended to
do so? Huh?
> I don’t agree I took it “badly”,
Really? I think you took it as a personal attack. I'd say that qualifies as
"badly". Especially since I think Larry's message was intended to be more
general.
> but do you think I was supposed to?
No. And that's precisely why I don't think it was a troll. Granted some
parts might have been trollish, but due to my impressions of Larry, I don't
think it was really much of a troll at all.
> > Point of fact, though, in order to make that
> > claim, you have to show evidence of Larry's intent to prove "troll-ism".
>
> Do I really? How can I prove his “intent” to do anything?
You can't. I don't think. You could present a case, and perhaps even
convince me (or others), but in the end, you can't "prove" it at all.
> His actions suggest it was a troll, why is that not enough?
Oh? My read is that he wanted you to NOT respond. That would in fact be the
OPPOSITE of a troll.
> > > > > I further explained the issue at the base of that very post. The rest is
> > > > > self-evident.
> > > >
> > > > You explained the issue, but not the reasoning behind it, beyond your
> > > > emotional expectation of Larry's post being against you.
> > >
> > > Just what is not clear to you?
> >
> > What makes you think it was a troll post? Because you were offended?
>
> What makes you think I was “offended”?
Because you called it an attack on you, and you bothered to respond.
Remember that 'snippy pride' bit? You felt naturally compelled to defend
yourself, when there was no need. Says to me that you were offended. You may
not have been, granted, but your self-defense says to me that you were.
> > > > > > 5) http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18601
> > > > > > Your implication is that Larry isn't a good role model. But no
> > > > > > justification. Further, if Larry just said "no", wasn't your post in
> > > > > > vain? Why not say what you meant to say?
> > > > >
> > > > > Within the context of the discussion, that comment was perfectly
> > > > > understandable.
> > > >
> > > > No it wasn't.
> > >
> > > It was. He'd only just responded to one of my messages that very day!
> >
> > ? My point is that whether or not he's a role model was irrelevant to the
> > point at hand. It wasn't a justifyable comment.
>
> I think it is. But then, I’m not a big fan of hypocrisy.
I guess I just don't see the point of posting a message that says "Oh yeah
Larry? You're a hypocrite!".
> > I would call this more of a troll post.
>
> Why so?
Because, what was the point? Larry already conceded that he doesn't always
ignore you-- so saying it to Larry is kinda useless. He already agrees and
you know it. Telling other people hardly seems worth the effort, what are
they going to do, not listen to him? Didn't his point have merit regardless
of whether or not *he* said it? Wouldn't a post of this sort only serve the
purposes of:
- having other people dislike Larry
- having other people dislike you for bothering to post such an accusation
?
> > > > He was talking about the system itself, you were talking
> > > > instances. Further, his implication given the context is you, but his post
> > > > still need not be in reference TO you.
> > >
> > > Perhaps I'm just paranoid then?
> >
> > I suppose that's a word for it. I would instead say that you're more
> > subjective than one in o-t.debate ought to be.
>
> Care to justify that? [i.e. show how I’m “more subjective”?]
You responded to Larry's post by taking it subjectively, IE with respect to
you personally, rather than objectively, which would mean to the forum in
general. You posted concerning your own personal tiffs with Larry rather
than the objective issues at hand. I would say one ought not do so.
> > Quite truthfully, it seems that most
> > people hold you in low regard as an uncritical thinker or just plain stupid
> > insofar as you can't see the real points.
>
> Can you justify that, or are you just shooting from the hip? What was your
> general “lack-of-justification” case against me?
I could site several people from personal emails to me, and also posts
online. I'm sure you know the type. I don't think I've ever seen anyone else
(with the possible exception of Larry, though much of that is elsewhere on
Lugnet) receive so much negative flak from fellow Lugnetters.
> > I think instead that you're lazy.
> > You have potential to make it clear what points you're making, but you
> > don't.
>
> Perhaps I expect too much from the readership? ;)
I've often thought that. Quite often you'll slip in a word or two which
isn't obviously emphasized, and hence your points are misinterpreted. But
what's worst is that after they're misinterpreted, it seems that you don't
put the effort into making sure your actual point was clear, and instead
focus elsewhere.
> > You're also remarkably susceptible to flame. Granted, so is Larry,
> > but you're the only one of the two of you who seems to not acknowledge that
> > fact.
>
> You’ll have to justify that 1st. Examples? What was your general
> “lack-of-justification” case against me?
You keep zealously defending yourself in this thread. My o-t.debator card
post. Whenever Larry makes a negative comment or insinuation about you.
You're always quick to respond, typically with what appears to be some sort
of emotional demeanor.
> > > > > Have I fought fire with fire? I chose to simply dismiss his post as a
> > > > > "troll", rather than respond in kind.
> > > >
> > > > No, he accused your posting methods and you did likewise. You just chose a
> > > > different description. Further, again, while Larry's post did IMPLY you,
> > > > those unaware of the situation at hand needed not your history to
> > > > comprehend Larry's post.
> > >
> > > Hmm, I thought my notoriety meant all were aware of my faults as noted by
> > > you?
> >
> > Attacking me now?
>
> I don’t see how you can construe that as an attack. If I’ve offended you,
> I’m sorry.
No-- I honestly didn't understand what you were talking about. You mentioned
your faults as noted by me. The only way I could make heads or tails of your
comment was that perhaps you somehow were sarcastically positing my position
in this thread as being somehow idolized or revered by other Lugnet members,
further insinuating by sarcasm that the opposite was true and that somehow
my position was completely inaccurate. Feel free to explain what you meant.
I have no idea.
> > ? Would Larry's point be invalidated if your thread didn't exist? Does it
> > not have its own objective value?
>
> Would he have posted if I had not posted for a few days? Somehow, I doubt
> it. Do you think Larry was concerned wholly with standards of debate, or
> merely dealing with me and my “anti-American” views? Both? How about you?
Ah, but would he have posted it if it were someone *else*? And further, in
order to be a troll post, wouldn't the intent be to get the target to
respond emotionally? Granted it seemed to me that you *did*, but I get the
feeling that that was the OPPOSITE of the intent.
> BTW: As an aside, can one make valid and objective points, and still be a >troll?
Most definitely. It's often an effective trolling mechanism, in fact.
However, the intent (as defined by trolling) is to get targeted people to
respond out of emotional reaction. I'll bet you an MISB 6080 that this was
NOT Larry's intent (tho admittedly we have no way of proving that fact).
> > > > Oh most definitely not. Whether a post needs further justification is often
> > > > a matter of opinion. But I have yet to find an opinion other than your own
> > > > which accepts your posts in general as having sufficient backing.
> > >
> > > I can't say I've been counting noses. Perhaps you would be good enough to
> > > list the urls?
> >
> > List the urls where people other than you accept your posts in general as
> > having sufficent backing?
>
> As I expect you’d guessed, I meant for you to list the URLS which support
> your point. Do you care to now?
Huh? I said I have yet to find one. How am I supposed to list URLs I have
yet to find?
> Do you care to expend on that? Am I the only person with a “mild attitude”
> [or worse] whom you have publicly castigated? If so, why?
Here you go with that "Am I the only one" thing again. Not really important.
You could even prove to me that others are worse offenders. I'll admit there
quite possibly *ARE* worse offenders. Point is, I don't know of them. Your
demeanor in general is the one that gets under my skin (and obviously
others) the most. Are there others? Maybe. And if you can find one that
annoys me personally more than you, I personally will probably victimize
them *and* you. But chances are you'd just find someone who was equally
guilty, but who just didn't annoy me *personally* as much. Chances are. I
could be wrong.
> > I had
> > probably confused the 100% with the "1000+ word troll" comment; though
> > admittedly, such is quite implicative of 'total troll' or '100% troll'
> > anyway, I might say.
>
> Do you care to justify that?
How can I? What's bigger, something that enormous or something that's
gigantic? To say that it's how I interpret an implication isn't really
further explicable-- it really *is* subjective, I fully admit.
> > See above-- I think at the time I must have been doing searches on your
> > posts and pulled up one on a different issue. Odd. I thought for sure you
> > had said something to the effect that you didn't bother with the entire post
> > since it fit in with Larry's 'usual' manner or some such. Sorry for that ?>>one...
>
> But not the other?
Nah, not really. Or, perhaps... just not as much. I dunno. The troll part of
your claim you still made which I disagree with. The 'not bothering to read
the whole thing' I admittedly seemingly pulled out of thin air. That one I'm
entirely guilty on, by no fault of yours whatsoever.
> > > Given the context I have stated, just who do you think the post could have
> > > been aimed at? Himself? You?
> >
> > Point of fact was that who it was aimed at only seems to bother you
> > specifically.
>
> Perhaps because it was aimed at me?
Right, but not everyone has your reaction to critique. You seem more
bothered by people pointing out your faults than others do.
> > His recommendation that points be dropped after sufficient
> > discussion and that 'troublemakers' should be ignored stands without needing
> > a specific subject.
>
> Does it even need to be stated?
Oh yes. Not as much for long-timers, really, but for newbies. And a reminder
now and again doesn't hurt.
> > Sure, you saw it as an attack, but aren't his points still valid?
>
> Do you agree it was attack?
In part, I spose. But I wouldn't say it "was an attack", because that
implies that it is at least in its majority an attack, which I *wouldn't*
agree with. But again, to be a troll he would have to want you to respond.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | <snip>
|
| David, I have a couple of issues with your post which I'd like to highlight before tackling the other points you raise: 1. Issue 1 (...) I'm not being clear on this one bit. In fact I've made a bit of a mess. Let's rewind[?]. Asking me to find (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
38 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
