Baron Max banned again?

[James R]

To mordea:

Can you please post some examples, and explain how each constitutes trolling? Lately quite a few members have been banned for trolling, so I think it's only fitting that we know exactly what constitutes this offence, in order to avoid committing it.

I hope the above helps you.

Nevertheless, you have had a number of arguments with Baron in the past few months where you saw fit to belittle him.

I've called him out on his trolling. That's all.

Why would S.A.M 'libel' you unprovoked? The very fact that she did so suggests that there was some form of altercation between you two.

This thread is not about SAM. I suggest you read the "s.a.m." thread if you're interested in that matter.

What does my status as a member have to do with your moderation? Surely you can answer a few simple questions without getting personal?

I answer you not because I have any necessity to do so, but to help you clarify an issue you're obviously having. This thread is not about me, either.


pjdude1219:

shitty standards enforced fairly are still shitty standards

Surprise! pjdude picks up where he left off in the "s.a.m." thread. I wondered how long it would take.

Oh, and Tiassa's here too now.

Do you guys want to rehash the SAM matter again? If so, I suggest you contact me by PM.


S.A.M.:

Well pjdude, since the world is biased and unfair as a rule, I'm sure the Baron, realist that he is, knows just where he stands in it, exactly as I do.

Being "normal" under the circumstances probably qualifies as a mental illness.

Read the above and tell me that Baron Max has not been trolling his little heart out. Go on. I want to hear it from you. Try to keep a straight face.

 

[S.A.M.]

I've already said he's not trolling. He's presenting the real world view, which is not necessarily the rational one. I suspect the Baron is far more of a skeptic than the so called rationalists here. What he is guilty of, more than anything else, is not taking himself or anyone else seriously. But this is a fricking discussion forum!!! He shouldn't have to!

The problem I see here, is that you have some kind of school marm attitude to how people should post here. I've seen you correcting spellings, imposing a strictured formal debate thingy which is so dull that its unbelievable. We do this at work, sciforums is where we come to hang out.

I think you should restrict your posting to the formal debates forum, where you can control everything about the structure of the debate. Because there are far too many inane, stupid and mindless posts at sciforums to accuse someone like Max of trolling. At the very least, he forces people out of their tiny little boxes.

Unfortunately sciforumers are too emotional and lazy to rationally address what he says.

 

[pjdude1219]

Here are a few examples of Baron Max's trolling over the past week or so for those who are concerned. Feel free to read the original threads in full and count the LOLs, the twisting and misrepresentation of people's words, the false attribution of views to people who do not express those views, and the repetition of points previously debunked. Most importantly, gauge how many of these posts aim at getting an angry reaction from the recipient.



In [thread=98899]this thread[/thread], Max did little other than troll. Look at all the instances where he tried to put words in other people's mouths, for a start.

























Note the emoticon on this one, too.



That's enough for that thread.

Max decided to carry over his bullshit from that thread to a few other threads. For example:



Then there's this thread:



And many more like this scattered throughout the same thread.

And another one [not directed at me]:



Look! Here's one directed at S.A.M.:



---

These posts are just the tip of the iceberg, and these are just from the last few days.

Has anybody noticed a pattern in the above quotes? No? I'll tell you. There's a pattern Max has of phrasing his trolling posts as questions. Those questions are usually framed so as to give the impression that other posters hold ridiculous views. Those questions are framed in such a way as to build straw men of the views that other posters actually hold. In so doing, Max attempts to dismiss and divert legitimate discussions into silly, repetitious nonsense. He's not even particularly clever about it. You can almost hear him chuckling to himself as he composes his next post aimed at provoking an angry reaction from one poster or another, anticipating the reaction he will get.

---

Now, I'd like mordea to tell me that the above does NOT constitute trolling, in his opinion. I expect that's what will happen.

and the people that use the same patterns that remain un ouched. I fail to see how that constitutes trolling. Just because something is annoying doesn't mean its trolling. with little effort we could find far more extreme examples and in patterns of people untouched.

 

[pjdude1219]

pjdude1219:



Surprise! pjdude picks up where he left off in the "s.a.m." thread. I wondered how long it would take.

What you wondered whole long it would take for a critic of yours to call you out on your bs? maybe in stead of wondering such things a better use of your time would be fixing the problems

Do you guys want to rehash the SAM matter again? If so, I suggest you contact me by PM.

it was never about SAM. the fact that SAM was involved was incidental. You have a pattern of capricious use of moderator powers and your not the only one. I use patterns patterns like he did to go after some disagreements, so do Joe,ice,buffalo, and read. all 5 of us use a mocking condecending tone to deal with ideas we disagree with at times fairly often repeatedly and yet none of us have been banned for trolling doing so. Your linking of to two incidents only strengthens the arguments against you in that you recognize a pattern can be seen.



and James I am getting tired of your mischarcterizations of why I am complaining. You have no reason to be mistaken as I have told you clearly why I am doing so. Your misrepresentation could be construed as libel and we all now how you treat that.

 

[James R]

SAM:

I've already said he's not trolling. He's presenting the real world view, which is not necessarily the rational one. I suspect the Baron is far more of a skeptic than the so called rationalists here. What he is guilty of, more than anything else, is not taking himself or anyone else seriously. But this is a fricking discussion forum!!! He shouldn't have to!

Derailing threads with repetitious nonsense aimed at provoking angry reactions from people is trolling. This is a fricking discussion forum, not a trolling forum.

The problem I see here, is that you have some kind of school marm attitude to how people should post here. I've seen you correcting spellings, imposing a strictured formal debate thingy which is so dull that its unbelievable.

This thread is not about me.

I rarely, if ever, correct anybody's spelling. I have occasionally done so in thread titles where the meaning was unclear as a result (e.g. somebody recently posted a thread on "Deison spheres", which I corrected to "Dyson spheres" for the simple reason that anybody searching the correct term ought to be able to find that thread.)

If you can find any egregious examples of me correcting spelling, why don't you cite them? Wait! I know. It's because you know it doesn't happen. But you thought you'd have a quick snipe while other people are doing it.

On the matter of the Formal Debates forum, I have not "imposed" that on anybody. Members of sciforums are free to read that forum or not read it as they wish. Nobody is forced to post there. The facility is one that I thoughtfully made available to people who wish to engage in that style of discussion. The fact that you personally do not wish to is beside the point. Nobody, least of all me, is imposing that forum on you. The fact that you find structured debates "dull" does say something about you, though. I know that rigidity bothers you - things like having to stick to one topic, not being able to change the subject to something tangential to divert attention - that kind of thing. That must really bother you.

I think you should restrict your posting to the formal debates forum, where you can control everything about the structure of the debate.

I don't control anything about the structure of debates there, except the ones I personally participate in - and what control I have there is entirely by agreement with the person I am debating. It's 50-50 control - moreso than any other subforum on sciforums. Go and read the sticky threads at the top of that subforum, and learn how the thing actually works. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Because there are far too many inane, stupid and mindless posts at sciforums to accuse someone like Max of trolling.

I don't think you actually understand what trolling is. No surprises there.

Unfortunately sciforumers are too emotional and lazy to rationally address what he says.

Rubbish. When somebody addresses what he says, he waits for a while then repeats the same thing over again at a later date. As do you.

 

[mordea]

Here are a few examples of Baron Max's trolling over the past week or so for those who are concerned.

I'd agree that Baron can sometimes be obtuse and engage in hyperbole. He is not very diplomatic when he goes out of his way to point out what he perceives to be hypocrisy or flaws in someone's opinion. And he does sometimes oversimplify the views of others.

However, I don't consider what you cited to be trolling. For all his faults (most of which are possessed by *many* members here), I don't think Baron's primary purpose of posting is to spite others. He's an old cynical guy who sometimes enjoys being contrary and playing Devil's advocate. I welcome this, he gets people thinking and questioning. Furthermore, he rarely (if ever) personally attacks the individual he disagrees with, and he has always argued in favour of letting fellow posters have their say.

His posts are always concise and tend to generate a lot of discussion. And yes, sometimes he does catch members out on their hypocrisy, supposition or illogical train of thought! Baron has a sharp mind and a biting wit, and it shines through in his often abrasive posts. He is not the 'ideal' poster, but the forum would be poorer off without him.

In [thread=98899]this thread[/thread], Max did little other than troll. Look at all the instances where he tried to put words in other people's mouths, for a start.

People misrepresent each others views all the time, both accidently and intentionally. I don't see why Baron (and S.A.M, for that matter) were singled out.

Those questions are usually framed so as to give the impression that other posters hold ridiculous views.

And sometimes he's right on the money. Sometimes the views people on this forum hold are based on faulty logic, internal or external inconsistencies, or supposition.

In so doing, Max attempts to dismiss and divert legitimate discussions into silly, repetitious nonsense. He's not even particularly clever about it. You can almost hear him chuckling to himself as he composes his next post aimed at provoking an angry reaction from one poster or another, anticipating the reaction he will get.

And yet I have observed Baron holding reasonable and rational conversations with posters who keep their cool. If you're not getting anywhere with him, then just place him on ignore.

 

[James R]

pjdude:

Just because something is annoying doesn't mean its trolling.

Right. Now tell me how the above from Baron Max is not trolling. Go through it post by post.

What you wondered whole long it would take for a critic of yours to call you out on your bs?

I wondered how long it would take you to start whinging again.

 

[James R]

And yet I have observed Baron holding reasonable and rational conversations with posters who keep their cool. If you're not getting anywhere with him, then just place him on ignore.

It's not about me. Also, as an administrator, I don't have the luxury of putting people on ignore. To do so would be to abdicate my role as a moderator.

 

[S.A.M.]

James R:

You're right, I don't understand what trolling is. To me, anything that offers a fresh perspective on an issue is not trolling, I see Max as invoking sometimes a nihilistic outlook, sometimes challenging political correctness, sometimes laughing at how manipulated we are by media and social norms. I do not see him as trolling. If you take a look at all the discussions we have had in the forums and mod forum on Max, you'll recognise that my point of view on this matter has been unchanged for the last four years

As for your egregious spellcheck, I always support any claim I make, accusations to the contrary notwithstanding. So here is what I consider an extremely arrogant and egregious act on your part:

source

I was quite frankly offended on Asguards behalf when I read it.

 

[mordea]

Rubbish. When somebody addresses what he says, he waits for a while then repeats the same thing over again at a later date. As do you.

That's hardly a surprise. Most posters on a public debate forum rarely (if ever) concede a point. Why should Baron and S.A.M be any different?

 

[pjdude1219]

pjdude:



Right. Now tell me how the above from Baron Max is not trolling. Go through it post by post.

what purpose would that serve? it would change the action

I wondered how long it would take you to start whinging again.

I wasn't. all I said in actual opinion in regards to this was I didn't see it. You made it it about yourself.

 

[pjdude1219]

pjdude:



Right. Now tell me how the above from Baron Max is not trolling. Go through it post by post.

what purpose would that serve? it would change the action

I wondered how long it would take you to start whinging again.

I wasn't whining i was stating in opinion though you do seem to believe the 2 are one and the same. all I said in actual opinion in regards to this was I didn't see it. You made it it about yourself.

 

[Bells]

and the people that use the same patterns that remain un ouched. I fail to see how that constitutes trolling. Just because something is annoying doesn't mean its trolling. with little effort we could find far more extreme examples and in patterns of people untouched.

Nonsense.

Had you paid attention to the ban list in the last month, you would have seen that others have not remained "untouched".

However, I don't consider what you cited to be trolling. For all his faults (most of which are possessed by *many* members here), I don't think Baron's primary purpose of posting is to spite others.

Ermm yes he does.

The man thrives on it.

 

[joepistole]

Nonsense.

Had you paid attention to the ban list in the last month, you would have seen that others have not remained "untouched".


Ermm yes he does.

The man thrives on it.

Agreed, his trolling is not hard to see. I think management extended a lot of grace to the man.

 

[S.A.M.]

On the matter of the Formal Debates forum, I have not "imposed" that on anybody. Members of sciforums are free to read that forum or not read it as they wish. Nobody is forced to post there. The facility is one that I thoughtfully made available to people who wish to engage in that style of discussion. The fact that you personally do not wish to is beside the point. Nobody, least of all me, is imposing that forum on you. The fact that you find structured debates "dull" does say something about you, though. I know that rigidity bothers you - things like having to stick to one topic, not being able to change the subject to something tangential to divert attention - that kind of thing. That must really bother you.

Ironic. I notice you call people names if they don't fall in with your "I control all" style of debate where you can lock threads at will, delete posts if they don't match your idea of whats right and overall impose yourself completely on the structure and framework of the debate

You want to teach people how to follow you. And if they think you're a nutty control freak and want nothing to do with it, you call them names.

Like you called Buffalo Roam a coward here for not wanting to do your rigid structured controlled [by you] formal debate.

No.

As an administrator, I look through all the threads listed each day. I've been noticing your multiple attempts to have a fake debate when you're actually too scared to have a real one. This thread is just one more of those desperate attempts of yours to try to save face. It hasn't worked of course. We know you're a coward.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2444197&postcount=7

And again here:

Seriously?? A real man has a real debate [pulls out giant 10 foot cock for dick comparison contest]

 

[pjdude1219]

Ironic. I notice you call people names if they don't fall in with your "I control all" style of debate where you can lock threads at will, delete posts if they don't match your idea of whats right and overall impose yourself completely on the structure and framework of the debate

You want to teach people how to follow you. And if they think you're a nutty control freak and want nothing to do with it, you call them names.

Like you called Buffalo Roam a coward here for not wanting to do your rigid structured controlled [by you] formal debate.


http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2444197&postcount=7

And again here:

Seriously?? A real man has a real debate [pulls out giant 10 foot cock for dick comparison contest]

well james did have a point in that regard

 

[S.A.M.]

What point? Would he give Buffalo Roam the same powers of moderation he has in the forum?

In which universe does the person who debates one side of an argument also moderate it?

 

[pjdude1219]

What point? Would he give Buffalo Roam the same powers of moderation he has in the forum?

his repeated refusal to deal with refuting posts

 

[S.A.M.]

Well I have several complaints with James myself in that regard. Can I call him names as well? What do you think?

Remember this?

demanding people provide sources in refutation of a post that is not backed up by sources in my opinion should be considered trolling.

Why worry? You're not obliged to comply with somebody else's demands. Relax. Move on.

 

[Bells]

I was quite frankly offended on Asguards behalf when I read it.

Irony.

In which universe does the person who debates one side of an argument also moderate it?

We all did when we moderated. You did, I did, Tiassa does, and the rest of the moderator's also do it.

Should we, when we were moderators, and should the current moderators simply not partake in any discussion at all on this forum because they also moderate?

The debate forum is moderated by all the moderators. You knew that.