cosmored in the Moon Hoax thread

[MeteorWayne]

I am about to bring the hammer down on this jerk.

The "Wall of links" with no discussion with the community has grown very old.

I have suggested that he limit himself to one youtube link at a time, so we can discuss it. When confronted with an argument about one of the videos, he switches the subject to another of the dozens of youtubes in the same post.

I'd like to enforce a limit of one youtube link per post, so actual discussion can take place, otherwise I believe he is a spammer or a troll.

I'd appreciate some thoughts on this.

He has basically made the same post dozens of times, without engaging in serious discussion with the community. To me that's a spammer or a troll.

The other Wayne

 

[3488]

He's a woo woo troll for sure.

I did raise a concern about cosmored during the debate about Quantum11.

Yes I think a ban is in order.

Andrew.

 

[doublehelix]

I can actually set up the board so that there is a limit on the number of links per post:

Maximum links per post:
Maximum number of URLs in a post. Set to 0 for unlimited links.

Would this be an appealing option?

-dh

 

[MeteorWayne]

Neat, I wasn't aware that was an option. Worth keeping in mind. Some valid posts contain maybe 5 or so. Setting it to 10 would piss him off for sure However, that's not really the issue with this toad. It's more that he does not engage in conversation, and is relying on a dozen youtube links to speak for him, since he apparently can't speak for himself.

 

[doublehelix]

I just took a look - dang, that's a lot of links! We should be grateful he hasn't figured out how to embed youtube videos into his posts.

-dh

 

[drwayne]

It's a standard approach I have seen by various CT, Hoaxers and creationists. Throw a ton of links/claims out there,
because

(1) Like the old Stalin saying goes, "Quantity has a quality all it's own" - volume carries implications like "if there's
this much smoke, there has got to be a fire" and links can give a certain gravitas to an argument.

(2) They figure that no one is going to take the time to, point by point, discredit all of them, and from their point
of view, in one survives, their argument is proved.

(3) Throwing a volume of material up also provides the opportunity for shifting field, moving the goal posts and all
those other slippery "debate" tactics that they like so much to play out by making it impossible to have a focused
discussion.

(4) It also makes it easier to "recycle" earlier claims that have been refuted, as this is not as noticable, and far more
deniable in a huge volume.

 

[doublehelix]

Very astute observations. Thanks, drwayne!

-dh

 

[doublehelix]

Any more thoughts on setting up the board to limit the number of links posted in any one post?

Thanks,
-dh

 

[MeteorWayne]

No need at this time.
Much as I detest EarthlingX's style, he often posts 15 or more useful and related links in a post, so wouldn't want to impact that.

cosmored has vanished since I told him to stop posting the same crap over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, so we'll see what happens when he returns.

MW

 

[yevaud]

All very familiar. Me and Telfrow used to refer to it as a "Data Dump," for exactly the reasons Wayne said. It was unreadable and too convoluted to address. And, yes, a favored tactic of the more persistent woo-woos.

How's about a loose rule that a post (in the science forums) must be concise, not over x words, in any one post. That way, at worst, it forces said person to split up their 10,000 word screeds into manageable chunks.

I can't see any other way to control it, except to warn those who do this a few times, and if they keep doing it, ban them for a week (or perm, depending on how egregious).

Edit: Oh, heh. You were posting while I was posting.

 

[yevaud]

Oh, btw: RaptorBorealis...after using a few ad-hominems in a Politics thread to ALP - who politely told him, "we don't do that here, and if you do, you may depart" - he did self-depart, and hasn't been back since Saturday last.

How efficient. Think we can get all of the other problem people to do the same?

 

[drwayne]

Oh, btw: RaptorBorealis...after using a few ad-hominems in a Politics thread to ALP - who politely told him, "we don't do that here, and if you do, you may depart" - he did self-depart, and hasn't been back since Saturday last.

How efficient. Think we can get all of the other problem people to do the same?

If only.

On another board that I post recreationally on, there are several posters who appear, engage in a fight/discussion,
generally get their intellectual head handed to them, lay low for several weeks, and then reappear. The funny
part is at least one of them will say something like "I posted this and no one was able to discredit it"

 

[CalliArcale]

It could also be a form of the Gish Gallop. Overwhelm people with references in lieu of arguing a point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop#Debates

A lot of blogs have taken to either limiting the number of links or requiring that posts with a certain number of links have to go through moderation. Mostly, this is to discourage excessive link posting, though ostensibly it's to stop content spammers.

I have mixed feelings (of course). I tend to want to let nature run its course with obnoxious folks like this, rather than banning them. Let the community play hacky-sack with them until they get bored and the troll shifts its focus somewhere else. But sometimes it's just not worth it.

 

[drwayne]

It could also be a form of the Gish Gallop. Overwhelm people with references in lieu of arguing a point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop#Debates

A lot of blogs have taken to either limiting the number of links or requiring that posts with a certain number of links have to go through moderation. Mostly, this is to discourage excessive link posting, though ostensibly it's to stop content spammers.

I have mixed feelings (of course). I tend to want to let nature run its course with obnoxious folks like this, rather than banning them. Let the community play hacky-sack with them until they get bored and the troll shifts its focus somewhere else. But sometimes it's just not worth it.

And I'm sure you (we) don't want to get into situations where directions have the effect of having people
encouraged to post "facts" that are untracable.

(There was also a reference I though about posting to what you quoted about pro wrestling, where one
of the wrestlers (usually the heel) bails out to the outside of the ring for a while to recover, and plan his
next dastardly deed.