ShaneF430

is wrong. step 2) lambaste them step. 3) say that their methods of arguing are flawed and rely on emotion without ever actually addressing any of the points they have made.

You keep saying, I am emotional and over the top and that this is just a troll to be ignored. That is a very nice opinion, but you haven't addressed any of the distinctions I drew or points I made, and you never will, so oh well, keep insulting me pea brain, I'll do the same. Your internet war continues. Anxiously awaiting your next reply.

ShaneF430

in my reasoning, you just happen to disagree with it, yet fail to say anything original or break apart my argument by actually referencing anything I have said. I suspect this is because you know I am right, but to admit this is the case would mean losing your internet tough guy battle.<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/feedback/msgs/39552.phtml">YOU FAIL</a></li></ul>

ShaneF430

or modified? I understand the specific conduct is not currently listed in the rules. And I find it unfortunate that I can now go make a troll account and make 1000 straight posts spoiling movies and tv shows for people. That kind of behavior SHOULD be covered in the rules and should result in deletion. I never claimed that the conduct WAS a rule violation, I am making an appeal that it should be. Guess what? Laws and rules get changed and modified all the time based on public outcry, appeals, whatever you want to call it. I am doing nothing different here. I have not appealed to emotion, I have made very clear points:

Troll A makes a troll account and expresses intent to disrupt the community and only engage in pure negativity. Troll A then begins to spoil tv shows and movies for everyone. If Troll A continues to do this say 100 or even 1000 times, what is our recourse? We can A) do what you want and simply ignore it and watch our forum be spoiled with negativity (sounds a little dumb) or B) we can delete 1000 of his threads, well that seems silly too, why not just delete his whole account once he engages in the practice, its pretty easy to do, just as easy as deleting hundreds of threads. which brings me to C) if someone engages in this practice, lets incorporate it into the rules and have their account deleted.

Until you answer my question why should a troll account that posts 100 spoilers in a row not be deleted with a response or rebuttal other than "its not in the TOU" you have failed to respond to my argument with any more than the personal attacks that you have attributed to me making against you.

ShaneF430

whatsoever, so yes, they can delete this troll's messages as they have, and if they want to make a judgment call and delete his account, they may do so also. Please point me to anything in there that says otherwise.

SilberUrS6

Let's go through this line by line. This post is yet another example of your lack of reason when it comes to this issue. It may actually be indicative of a general lack of reason - that is yet to be determined.

"interesting, so now you are arguing that because rules are in place they can never be changed...or modified?"

Logical fallacy: Straw man.

"I understand the specific conduct is not currently listed in the rules."

A true statement. And one with which I agree 100%.

"And I find it unfortunate that I can now go make a troll account and make 1000 straight posts spoiling movies and tv shows for people."

Locigal fallacy: Multiplication.

"That kind of behavior SHOULD be covered in the rules and should result in deletion."

Faulty conclusion arising from fallacious premise, above.

"I never claimed that the conduct WAS a rule violation, I am making an appeal that it should be. Guess what? Laws and rules get changed and modified all the time based on public outcry, appeals, whatever you want to call it."

Finally, some actual logic.

Here is where we part company. Over-moderation leads to forum death. When you start regulating more and more what people can say, and punishing stuff at the margins, the margins seem to have a magical way of closing in, until the rules are the biggest group of writing on a forum website. I have seen it, been a part of it on both sides, and seen the results of it. The actions taken so far by the mods here at AW are, IMO, reasonable considering the "offense" of spoiling someone's TV watching. In a larger sense, banning (temporary or permanent) for writing things *you* don't happen to agree with is wrong.

One is tempted to make a slippery slope fallacy here - if the mods start adding rules to the ToU/ToS, where does it stop? I doubt that this will happen, but it may come to pass that they decide to institute a new rule that gores your ox. I would suspect you would not be too happy about that. Having seen with my own eyes the destruction wrought by over-zealous moderation, I prefer a loose ToU/ToS policy. And exercise my own discretion, rather than making others do the work for me.

Obviously, spoiler posts in the past have not caused a spoiler rule to be initiated, so you're probably on the losing end of this one. And, since the account has not been suspended, you're on the losing end of *that* one, too.

"I have not appealed to emotion,..."

Not in this post. In others you have.

"...I have made very clear points:
Troll A makes a troll account and expresses intent to disrupt the community and only engage in pure negativity. Troll A then begins to spoil tv shows and movies for everyone."

Logical fallacy: Multiplication.

"If Troll A continues to do this say 100 or even 1000 times, what is our recourse? We can A) do what you want and simply ignore it and watch our forum be spoiled with negativity (sounds a little dumb) or B) we can delete 1000 of his threads, well that seems silly too, why not just delete his whole account once he engages in the practice, its pretty easy to do, just as easy as deleting hundreds of threads."

Logical fallacies: Multiplication, slippery slope.

You can look up the most effective way of dealing with a troll. The one that is far and away the most effective will come up hundreds of times in a Google search. I'm sure you can guess what the result will be. Knee-jerk over-reaction and tough action ain't it.

"which brings me to C) if someone engages in this practice, lets incorporate it into the rules and have their account deleted."

Invalid conclusion reached from false/fallacious premises.

Two spoilers do not amount to an account suspension. Temporary or permanent. Two spoilers do not amount to even thread deletion. My opinion here differs from the AW moderators, but it's their call to make. I would not have, but I'm not in charge. In the end, it's much ado about TV. And your desire to eliminate what you don't like. I have some horrible new for you: there is no way to eliminate what you don't like from life, no matter how hard you try, no matter how much logical fallacy you use.

If we go and eliminate every line of logical fallacy from all your posts, it would condense down to about one good paragraph of text - a statement of your case for censorship and punishment (banning). And without the logical fallacies to obscure those things, your position would be very weak.

As it is, your position has been shown to be moot, because the account is not suspended, and the troll seems to have gone away. Because everyone but you took the time-tested course of action to eliminate trolls.

SilberUrS6

Just because I don't quote and enumerate them doesn't mean they don't exist.

If I had all day, I could disect every post you've made. Instead, I'll do just one. The others are similar, and the results likewise will be similar.

U = pwnt.

SilberUrS6

And since the mods have made their call, it looks like you come out short.

Again.

ShaneF430

the fighting that has lasted dayS now and the other posts are merely us bickering.

If you want to talk about straw man, your exact statement that I replied to was: "Read the AW TOU/TOS agreement. If posting spoilers is prohibited, you have a case. If not, then you are doing nothing of value."

I did not engage in "straw man" because you DID say that if this was not in the rules I add nothing of value, which IS a statement to the effect of, if the laws are the way they are thats it, nothing to be done "of value". I never made a straw man statement, please explain how I did, it is quite clear from your quote that you did indicate to me that NOTHING OF VALUE could come about if the rules weren't a certain way already, which implies that rules are what they are and cannot be changed or modified.

This is not to mention the fact that you never replied to my other post which asked you to show me where spoilers could NOT be grounds for deletion or suspension. As I said, the TOU is very clear that AWOT reserves the complete right to make final decisions regarding discipline of accounts. THEREFORE, it IS very much within their power under the TOU to take action against someone who posts spoilers, therefore I do in fact have a case, it just may not be a winning one just yet. I never claimed that I was going to win my appeal, just that it was backed with reason and by the rules.

"I understand the current conduct is not listed under the rules"
Doesn't matter, read the TOU, they make it quite clear that the listed violations are merely examples and are not all inclusive, and therefore, AW has the right reserved to take disciplinary action for ANY reason. Therefore, if this troll's behavior became unsavory to the community and the mods to the point where it was deemed to be worthy of discipline, they would clearly be able to engage in such action. I am merely making a case why it has already reached that point, they may disagree as of now, but it doesn't mean my basis for making the claim is faulty or that it isn't based on reason (as you suggest), it just means they are making a judgment call, and I respect that.

"I find it unfortunate that I can make a troll account and make 1000 straight spoilers"
I will agree that this is an exaggeration, but it is not multiplication in the sense that I never made an attempt to analogize this conduct to that of the current troll. Rather, I was trying to make an example for a case in which it might be worthy to consider taking action, thereby opening the discussion to when if at all any action should be taken. Is it at 2 posts, 20? 1000? I don't know, its not my call, but I offered the current troll as an example and also the example of a much more notorious offender in hopes that I would receive a response as to when enough is enough.

"I never claimed that the conduct WAS a rule violation, I am making an appeal that it should be. Guess what? Laws and rules get changed and modified all the time based on public outcry, appeals, whatever you want to call it."
We appear to agree that this is logical. Where we disagree is on the course of action taken by the mods. I absolutely think that there are circumstances where they should take action against this kind of behavior, you don't and neither do they at this current time, which is fine. My point remains, that if a person comes on the board and posts 30 harassing posts calling people homos, ****, virgins, *********, and expresses an intent to continue to harass people (harassing is explicitly prohibited in the TOU) THEN they intentionally spoil two tv shows and express that they will continue to do it randomly in the future, I think that that is enough to warrant deletion. Because what has the troll brought to the forum that warrants keeping them around. You say that it is a slippery slope or over-moderation, but I see it as very different and easy to draw a distinction. If you make an account and harass people continually, then post intentional spoilers, and offer nothing else, this is not a slippery slope, it is clear to me that this person should be deleted. But I respect their decision not to currently delete them (though they have deleted the threads, which is indicative of their disapproval of the behavior, something that you don't agree with, it may just be that two isn't enough, YET).

"I have not appealed to emotion."
In some of the threads we were both confrontational with one another and arguably relied on emotion. I'll admit it, but I have posted my points clearly without emotion in other threads, so the nonsensical ones we both engaged in really don't seem relevant, when there are ones like these.

"I have made very clear points."
You claim that I have engaged in multiplication here and for my next couple points, so I will just address that again before reaching the conclusion. Whether it is 2 or 200, the conduct remains the same, a person who is merely harassing the forum and engaging in negativity and has brought nothing else to the table. I ask you to please explain what the danger is (where is the slippery slope?) in deleting such an account? I never advocated deleting an account where a person has 23,000 posts and posts 2 deliberate spoilers because they are in a bad mood. I simply said if a troll makes an account, engages in harassing behavior expresses an intent to continue to do so, then also adds a spoiler, that spoiler is deleted by the mods (a warning) they continue to harass, add a second spoiler and express an intent to do more, that is also deleted, there is absolutely no danger for censorship to occur or for there to be a slippery slope in my opinion because you are ridding the forum of someone who by definition ("troll") is there for no other reason than to harm the forum.

"which brings me to C) if someone engages in this practice, lets incorporate it into the rules and have their account deleted."
Invalid conclusion reached from false/fallacious premises.

Your basis for saying I have reached an invalid conclusion is because this only happened twice. So I sincerely do ask you, since you have said that deleting even the threads, and especially the account would lead to a slippery slope and/or censorship, how do you reach your conclusion? How do you conclude that two is not enough? I understand your point that we could just ignore him, but just because we could ignore him instead of deleting him, does not mean it is per se censorship if we take the latter route. All of this troll's prior posts have been "harassing" (explicit violation of TOU) and he has even said that his goal is to harass the community. He then posted spoilers, not once, twice even after being warned via deletion, and he expressed that he did not care and would continue to do it. So where is the danger deleting him? He brings nothing but negativity (maybe not much to you, but clearly enough to some as evidenced by his thread deletion) to the community and is by definition and express intent on his part, someone who is here merely to bring down the forum. How is keeping him around beneficial to free speech and why would deleting someone who denigrates the community be censorship when the TOUs indicate that they reserve the right to sanction these people? All you have said is that it doesn't bother you, but you really haven't explained to me how deleting THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF PERSON (not all of them and not in an overly broad fashion - as I never suggested that and see how THAT would be censorship) implicates the manner in which the forum is regulated of free speech in that it amounts to censorship, nor did you explain the benefit of keeping them around.

I can see that at this point a mod (just one, Kris Hansen) has expressly said that they won't delete the account and other mods have not done so either. I respectfully disagree with this in this instance, as I unlike you would have deleted this account. However, they clearly do agree with me and disagree with you to the extent that they have deleted both the threads. Also, while this may not have amounted to a deletion yet, for you to state that this kind of conduct will never amount to deletion or that my argument for this type of conduct to ULTIMATELY end in a suspension or deletion is fallacious is based on a false assumption. You might never delete the account, but you won't have that authority, and until it comes to pass where this or another troll continues this type of behavior on a regular basis, we will not know whether I am right or wrong. What we do know is that the TOU clearly allows for action to be taken, and the mods have already implicitly disagreed with this conduct (spoilers) to at least some extent in that they have deleted the threads. Where it progresses from this point is unknown. I do agree that ignoring the troll is a good idea in the meantime.

I appreciate the discussion despite disagreeing with you on the fact that I am "illogical" and I am also willing to bury any hatchet that may have arisen out of this whole thing, since in the end it is just an internet argument. I am presuming you will reply but at this point I think we have both exhausted our positions on this matter.

ShaneF430

<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/feedback/msgs/39572.phtml">https://forums.audiworld.com/feedback/msgs/39572.phtml</a</li></ul>

ShaneF430

<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/feedback/msgs/39572.phtml">https://forums.audiworld.com/feedback/msgs/39572.phtml</a</li></ul>