Baron Max banned again?

[S.A.M.]

I don't like Baron Max.
I don't like what he stands for.
I would probably be infinitesimally happier if he didn't exist.

Well I like him although I disagree with almost everything he says [and boy, he's given me a very hard time for a very long time]

Because he likes to approach an argument from a a perspective which forces you to stop and reconsider.

e.g.

Gays can still be gay, but they can't act on their urges or feelings. Being gay is not illegal or punishable - ACTING gay is! But think of it this way, lots of people can't act on their urges or feelings either, so what's the big deal? When people have to shit really bad, they still know that they can't shit on the sidewalk, right? So they hold it, or they go to jail. If gays can't hold back their abnormal, perverted (according to the Ugandans) urges, then they go to jail. ....

Until then, if the Ugandans want to criminalize homosexual acts, then I see it as they're right to do so as a sovereign nation. Or do you suggest that western nations begin to interfere with any and all other nations, and force them to do things our way?

Substitute Uganda for Aboriginal Australians and homosexuality for old men marrying little girls and you have the current debate in Australia on whether Aboriginal courts should be exempt for having "backward" notions of marriage, after an old man raped a teen girl anally for two days to teach her to obey him.

Hes been quite valuable to me in some debates, because I'm all fuming and heated up and absorbed in the argument and he'll pop in and put some perspective on it by comparing it to some extreme and I'll think, he's right girl, its only a discussion, not the end of the world or even the change you want to see in it.

So yeah, I don't think of him as a troll.

 

[Syzygys]

In particular, note how many times he repeated points that had previously been debunked.

Come on James, you would be banned into oblivion by this standard. Yes, I can prove it.....

 

[Nasor]

In post #109 of this thread Billy T seems to admit that Baron Max is his troll sock puppet, and that he has other sock puppets as well. Although bizarrely, he seems to post long messages explaining things to his own sock puppet.

He is not as dumb as he appears.* He just likes to pull people's chains.

I use him and some physics idiots to post for others.

 

[S.A.M.]

In post #109 of this thread Billy T seems to admit that Baron Max is his troll sock puppet, and that he has other sock puppets as well. Although bizarrely, he seems to post long messages explaining things to his own sock puppet.

Er no, Billy is saying that he uses the "dumb" questions that Baron and other "physics idiots" pose as a way of providing information to other readers.

 

[Nasor]

Er no, Billy is saying that he uses the "dumb" questions that Baron and other "physics idiots" pose as a way of providing information to other readers.

That's not my reading of his post. But then again, perhaps you are also one of his sock puppets?

Nasor retreats into the corner, looking around in a paranoid manner, muttering about how sock puppets are "everywhere, EVERYWHERE I tell you! You just can't see them..."

 

[visceral_instinct]

BM got banned? Yay, I hope he dies.

 

[spidergoat]

Is there anyone else on this forum who is banned so often and still remains?

 

[WillNever]

Trolling is in the eye of the beholder with the power to shut down your opinion.

Apparently, we are all a social experiment and conformity is the key.

In this case he actually is/was a bitter, old bad faith troll, hence his nonstop of usage of exclamations and "LOL!"

In internet lingo, an all caps "lol" translates into "I'm laughing at you or your ideas, right in your face!" Now take a moment and ask yourself, does that sound like the behavior of someone who is here to to learn from others? The answer is no, and you can set your watch by that dip's routine. Many of his posts were designed purely to annoy, and I can't imagine anyone arguing against that. That is trolling, and if he is as much of a pest in his everday life as he is here, then it's no wonder that he is unmarried and without children at age 65. Very amazed that so few have identified him for what he is.

 

[joepistole]

Mega dittos Will Never.

 

[Gustav]

Also, does the moderation consider it appropriate for a member to receive a ban from a moderator (err, administrator) he was debating an issue with immediately prior to said ban? This happened to S.A.M, and now it's happening to Baron (who is considered by some to be the other side of the same coin).

depends on the issue and what actually is being said. james may have a few blind spots but the baron is not one of them.. i skimmed the thread and it appears for the most part that the baron is guilty as charged

like james said ...."at the very least, show some goddamn flair

ps: oh dear, was that an unwarranted inference? was that as james oh so unscientifically put it, ....words in my mouth? guess i better call my lawyer

james

make a practice of informing the mods who have jurisdiction over the sections of sci where you feel the violations of the tos occur. let them have a crack at it. it is as simple as......"hey string have a look at this".

if you have an issue with their call, hash it out with them

that outta provide a layer of insulation b/w you and the rabid masses
be the just, impartial; mostly invisible, arbiter that i want you to be.

as for the ban...let the baron be. ignore him. its way too late in the game to ban a harmless old coot permanently

 

[Gustav]

bans by committee please
rescind all individual ban privileges
i want a consensus

 

[Tiassa]

head vs. wall

I am merely questioning your silence on the actual issue.

I am merely questioning your bias.

I thought that was blatantly obvious. As I pointed out in the other thread, if it had been Baron who had been banned, you would not have said a single word in protest. And here we are.

Reality.

Bells, did you ever witness a crime or accident, and then call the police or rescue squad?

I have. But I also have yet to figure what about that act obliges me to walk the streets in search of crimes or accidents to call the police or rescue squad for. You know, to be fair. I mean, I would hate for people to think it's something personal, right? A crime occurs right in front of me, and the only reason I have to call the police is that I have a beef against the crook or a specific sympathy for the victim?

You know, I keep asking you to make some sort of substantial argument, and it keeps proving too much for you to do. Please stop trolling.

 

[mordea]

In this case he actually is/was a bitter, old bad faith troll, hence his nonstop of usage of exclamations and "LOL!"

In internet lingo, an all caps "lol" translates into "I'm laughing at you or your ideas, right in your face!" Now take a moment and ask yourself, does that sound like the behavior of someone who is here to to learn from others?

LOL (oops...). How dare Baron not be all anal and uptight like the majority of the membership here!

Furthermore, how many posters on sciforums want to 'learn from others'? I could count the number on my left hand. Most just want to push their particular agenda, and are quite quick to deem anyone who has the audacity to disagree with them as 'dishonest', 'ignorant', or a 'troll'. It's especially bad with the long term members and moderators, as they seem to suffer from forum fatigue.

Almost all of Baron's cited flaws are shared by the majority of the members on sciforums. His only real crimes are being more vocal than most, having a tendency to play the Devil's advocate, and clashing with the wrong people.

 

[WillNever]

LOL (oops...). How dare Baron not be all anal and uptight like the majority of the membership here!

He is actually way more uptight than most people here, but he hides it. He doesn't hesitate to report posts that offend his ideals or at least the ideals he pretends to have. I know of at least two occasions where he reported my replies for ageist statements that I made against him. Fortunately, none of the moderators cared.

Furthermore, how many posters on sciforums want to 'learn from others'?

I believe most do. Most people on the board are open-minded enough that they can be persuaded to alter their beliefs even a little based upon the statements of others, especially when those statements originate from others who already hold similar ideals as they do. As James R has shown, baron is not interested in critical thinking or opposing views. He will simply reiterate debunked points over and over and over in order to maintain his image.

And worse: baron trolls with no agenda of logical argumentation. The other agenda pushers that you are talking about are actually trying to make a point. Max on the other hand is a persona non grata who never posts anything scientific and is here for no reason except, in most cases, to draw attention to himself by establishing an idiotic cult of personality in the various non-scientific subforums that he encapsulates himself in. I imagine that if you visit Max's real life house, you will find nobody living there except for an old and probably overweight slob sitting at his computer nude and surrounded by an absurd number of cats.

 

[Nasor]

Almost all of Baron's cited flaws are shared by the majority of the members on sciforums. His only real crimes are being more vocal than most, having a tendency to play the Devil's advocate, and clashing with the wrong people.

Well yes, everyone is annoying to a certain extent. But he's much more annoying than most. After looking over the thread in question, it looks like he was up to his usual bullshit; doing things like responding to people's posts with "Oh, so you're saying X, Y, and Z?" when in fact the OP never said anything like X, Y, or Z. You tell him you don't like drinking milk, and he responds with "So you want dairy farmer to starve?!?" or something similar.

Sure, it's not particularly challenging to compose reasoned responses to his bullshit, but what's the point? You'll usually just end up expending significant time and effort explaining why his post wasn't really worth responding to in the first place.

 

[WillNever]

Indeed, I once created a thread addressing baron's (and others') tendencies to take people's statements and make illogical and unrelated extremes with them. Check it out.

I believe it is a coping mechanism. People who have no original ideas of their own making typically cope by attacking the ideas of original people. Check out his post history, some time. Almost of his posts are deconstructive of ideas not his own. And none of his posts express new ideas or new lines of reasoning.

 

[Nasor]

Indeed, I once created a thread addressing baron's (and others') tendencies to take people's statements and make illogical and unrelated extremes with them. Check it out.

I think it is a coping mechanism. He never puts out any original ideas that he forms his own, so he just exaggerates other people's ideas and then argues against the exaggeration.

I hadn't noticed that particular thread, but those were certainly good examples of what I was talking about. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed his chronic problem with that particular "argument technique". He does it so often, and the ideas that he tries to put in people's mouths are often so wildly different from what they actually said, that I'm pretty sure he's just a bad-faith troll who likes to try to stir up trouble and confusion.

 

[Pinwheel]

I came across Baron Max before over on
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/how-to-punish-your-wife-5693.html

He seemed more logical then, or at least attempted to argue properly. On sciforums though, he seems to love tearing into 'liberals'.

 

[Doreen]

Well I like him although I disagree with almost everything he says [and boy, he's given me a very hard time for a very long time]

Because he likes to approach an argument from a a perspective which forces you to stop and reconsider.

as I told him in the thread started after you got banned: you two have similar styles, if not beliefs.

 

[James R]

SAM:

You're right, I don't understand what trolling is. To me, anything that offers a fresh perspective on an issue is not trolling...

troll (n.): someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.​

So now you know.

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:

And since 27 November last year? Have you seen me correcting anybody's spelling? That's a two month gap to the present time.

And prior to 27 November last year? See how far you have to go back before you can find any other instance of me correcting somebody's spelling.

I know you probably won't do this, because those posts are as rare as hens' teeth. This is a non-issue, and you know it.

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 didn't read the rules of the Formal Debates forum, did you?

The fact, SAM, is that as an administrator, I can lock any thread on the forum at will.

In terms of the Formal Debates forum, I resent your accusation that I am somehow dishonest or below board in my actions there. I only apply the rules of that forum, as set out in the sticky threads you haven't read. In particular, I have never deleted any post there that "doesn't match my idea of what's right", except if that post does not comply with the explicit rules governing the Formal Debates forum.

As I have explained to other people, any Debate thread in the Formal Debates forum is actually the most free place on the whole of sciforums in terms of an absence of moderator intervention. The terms of all debates there are agreed by the participants in advance, and moderators do not play any role. It is even possible to suspend the "normal" rules of sciforums in a Formal Debate, by agreement of the participants. The only caveat to that is that the result must fit the usual conception of what a Formal Debate is.

Your claim that I impose the structure of debates is false. The structure of debates is agreed by the debaters, as you would know if you had read the sticky threads.

In short, you make yourself look stupid when you make pronouncements without first acquainting yourself with the subject matter.

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 doubt you didn't follow the exchanges with Buffalo Roam leading up to that, either. Buffalo Roam started by making numerous claims about the falsity of global warming. I challenged him to debate the matter formally. He prevaricated and finally declined. But then he continued to post the very kinds of claims that would have been covered in any such debate. The fact is, he is a coward for refusing to debate the issues properly. Like you, he couldn't stand the rigid scrutiny a structured Formal Debate would have put him under, so, like you, he instinctively avoided being put under the spotlight. But he still felt free to propagate his incorrect ideas across the other subforums, and also made silly claims that he was actually debating me even though he had explicitly declined to do so.

Would [James] give Buffalo Roam the same powers of moderation he has in the forum?

For the record, I have never edited any other debater's post in any Debate thread in the Formal Debates forum.

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

There is no moderation in Debate threads in the Formal Debates forum, except to apply the agreed rules of the debate. That has never really been necessary, though, in my experience.

Okay, how much you wanna bet that James unilaterally, without consulting anyone at all, banned Max for 14 days?

No need for a bet. It was a unilateral decision. Moderators have always had the latitude to make such decisions. If we can't trust moderators to act on their own initiative, there is little point in having moderators in the first place. The idea of having a moderator group rather than just one admin is that it spreads the load. If an admin has to review every decision made by every moderator, he may as well just do the entire job himself.

The funny thing is, you've been a moderator, so you know how it works.

I'm sure there are other mods have not allowed conflict of interest to stand in their way [there recently a bizarre 60 or 90 day ban for a similar difference in POV]

No there wasn't.