I wonder if they realize that plutarch has taken the Readers Digest® concept and incorporated it here?
The Lone Haranguer
EDIT: sorry--I deleted what I had written earlier; I had been thinking merely of R.'sD., and didn't take in until coming back this time that the opening post had mentioned a member by name. That was meaner than I want to be.
did you read the thread about there being no rules.. (mind you, there are ROBberies.
Oh, yeah, and ROB is just another AKA for Plutarch..
i wonder if there is a word for being tortured by boring text.
Overlords? We've got overlords? I thought this was an anarcho-syndicalist collective!
> the opening post had mentioned a member by name
I'm not sure that it did the first time your read it...
meaner than I want to be.
Mentioning plutarch by name is mean??? Well, strike me down for being a meany.
We've got overlords?
I'm sure that you ask this with irony, Faldage; and that's the way I used it too. (I can't believe the overlords let certain individuals run roughshod through these forums.)
I'm not sure that it did the first time your read it...
Huh?!? I'm not one to do stealth edits, although I know y'all are used to that sort of thing here.
The Lone Haranguer
You said:
Huh?!? I'm not one to do stealth edits, although I know y'all are used to that sort of thing here.
No, though I am quite new here, I was taken aback in another thread when plutarch edited one of his screeds after I had posted a response, and the purpose of the edit appeared to have been to make me look a fool.
The sheer dishonesty of editing a post without including a caveat speaks ill of that person, and I will no longer post to a thread on which he has posted.
Nor will I read a thread which he has originated. I seem to be in very good company on that, judging from all the threads in which plutarch is talking to himself only.
At first I wondered why so many people appeared to be reading those threads, and then I realized that it must be plutarch himself who keeps reopening the threads to up his "click count", about which he has made at least two boasts in recent days. It would not surprise me to learn that he suffers from terminal callus of the clicking finger.
Actually, in thinking about it, I question whether I shall continue to participate here. There is great potential, but plutarch's evils have poisoned this venue perhaps beyond resuscitation.
Sadly,
Curly
Curly, the one-in-many in question professes not to read this forum. Maybe it would be a good idea if you would repeat your post in one of the forums he/they do(es) read. Don't go away (edit: as so many others have done), just because of one troll. Or at least, stay in touch with me, please!
In reply to:
I question whether I shall continue to participate here.
I'm in agreement with you, CPat. I'm leaving before I ever really got started. I guess I'm just not all that much of a Contrarian.
the Contrarian
or send a email to Anu.. let him know how Plutarch's behavior effects you, and your willingness to particapate here.
give specific examples, Churl, note your discomfort with the edit, or note his many 'ploys' (power posting --comment after comment) or hijacking (to spew forth on his personal "idea's) or MacGruffins'--post that look like they might be about words, that posters attempt to make about words, but the HE uses to just go on about 'the media cult' or other "issues' he has.
Make it clear, Plutarch is a disruptive influence and treats every one (not simple the "cabal of carpel's") rudely.
Mentioning plutarch by name is mean??? No, love, I meant that what I'd intended to reflect back to RD by name was quite insulting, and that when I realized it also looked like I was insulting a named member...that was meaner than I want to be.
An open post to ChurlPat and the Contrarian:
I don't post often; I've posted once in a very angry way to Plutarch. I keep thinking about leaving, too, but keep persuading myself that there is more good than bad here.
I have enjoyed posts from both of you and feel exceedingly angry and sad that you are considering leaving. I honestly have no suggestions about how to get Plutarch to stop what he's doing, and I think I join many others on this board in feeling helpless about the situation. Much else in life has me feeling helpless and at times hopeless; it would be great to have this place back as a source of inspiration, humor and comraderie.
Helen, do you think complaints/examples to Wordsmith will really help? Can/will he do something about Plutarch's actions? If you believe he will, I'll send him a PM or whatever it takes to express my feelings to him.
At any rate, I do hope you, ChurlPat and the Contrarian, and ANY OTHERS, as you consider your continued participation, will keep this post and the expressions of others here in mind.
Leslie
Leslie--bless you!
**********************************************************
To: Churl Pat
I called you Pat at least once, because I couldn't bear to address you (or anyone) as "churl"! I see now that you have signed a couple of posts as 'curly'; would you prefer to be addressed as that? Or something else? Please let me know. Thanks.
"If a discussion you are involved in turns into a flame war, you might want to think about how you can douse the flames. Sometimes the best way is simply not to get involved, if nobody replies the flamer has nothing to burn."
http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/internet/netiquet.htm#Rule 7"Usually the best basic advice is to ignore the troll. It will probably go away if denied attention. This is the best way, but it is sometimes not very effective from your point of view if no one else follows this advice. Allowing the troll to spew unanswered may also give a clueless newbie the impression that the troll won the argument, and if the troll is on a crusade, this could be a Bad Thing."
http://www.imnsho.com/trolls.htm"What if someone continues to post to the Usenet news in a language that offends you? The best action is simply not to read any postings from that person."
http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/abusive.html"Sometimes trolls feel that they serve a community purpose, by shaking things up, stirring up discussion, playing the DevilsAdvocate, by being the CourtJesters, but they really aren't. They are a perversion of all those purposes. Nonetheless, you are never going to get rid of them. Wherever there's a crowd there's an attention seeker. It's human nature. Naturally, the best way to get rid of them is to stop paying attention."
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WhatIsaTroll
Father Steve,
yes, we've been through all of these troll-warnings and advice to the troll-worn several times before. but it seems that what we have here is something a bit different. early on, this troll professed great offense at being ignored. he claimed that it was all part of some grand conspiracy to be rid of him, and claimed he had much support from the silent majority -- why just look at the numbers of registered users and the numbers of views he gets.
he knows one other important thing. he knows he is "safe" here; that we can't get rid of him because Anu has abandonded us to the pettifoggers.
evidence suggests that he has been banned elsewhere, and that is what works best.
The best advice, on an umoderated board, to responding to trolling, flaming and other delinquent behaviour, is to ignore it .. and the person doing it. You are correct if you perceive that I have said this more than once ... in more than one way ... and reinforced my opinion/position with quotes/references from/to other sources. And I pretty much intend to keep doing that, until (a) the problem resolves itself or (b) folks begin to do the best thing, more consistently, or (c) somebody comes up with a better idea than the best idea I have been able to discover.
Ditto and amen, Father Steve. Though I will add that here, I don't (as yet) think it will look like he has won: even brand-new people have made it clear that they see who the problem-causer is. The only way he'll win is when the good people leave...
but that's the thorny part of the problem, for it's easy to see why the "good people" leave -- and difficult to fault them. for isn't that the simplest way to ignore him?
Here it is, boys and girls. Gather around a bit closer and pay particular attention to Miss Jackie. She says "The only way he'll win is when the good people leave..." When you boil it all down to the syrup, this is the pure truth left in the kettle.
>this is the pure truth
QED, we must fault them for leaving, or they weren't really good people.
tsuwm sez: "QED, we must fault them for leaving, or they weren't really good people."
I'm not into ascribing fault to anybody who decides that the good they get from participating in this board is outweighed by the aggravation. I did that once myself, a few years ago.
I am not into judging whether people who elect to leave are "good" or not. Remember, I only judge things that I get PAID to judge.
I am convinced, based on my reading of experts about flame wars and trolling and such, that there are only two likely outcomes: (1) the people ignore the offender, who eventually tires of the enterprise and withdraws, or (2) the people leave the board in sufficient numbers that it is destroyed. People who study the lives of boards such as this one suggest that there are not other realistic outcomes, for an unmoderated board.
It's not really that hard to ignore him completely. Makes the whole AWAD experience a lot more pleasant.
I mainly agree with Father Steve. But I don't think ignoring RH will work, because in the long run adherence to that good advice cannot be expected.
Separately is wrong to attribute RH's behavior to a personality disorder or alcoholism or anything else which might make that behavior in some way forgiveable. Whatever the underlying disorder, if there is one, we should take it for granted that he is out to destroy this site. And he will not stop until he has succeeded. It is really that simply. All his chatter and protestations are huey and fill. Huey, in that he doesn't believe a speck in them, fill, because his objective is simply to load on the offensive drivel: as much and as frequently as he can.
It occured to me, reading the Father Steve's first post of advice for the victims of these attacks, that at least one reason RH uses so many aliases is for the for the *sake* of conducting his own discourse. But this is not just foolishness: if he is ignored, he has and is his own forum. That is, he *cannot* be ignored. I mean to suggest that these populations of his are not plain idiocy, but strategy. They are meant to circumvent the inevitable efforts to ignore the poster. And it is for this reason, among others, that I suggest that he actively seeks to destroy the board: his populations and the fora they occupy like militias are perfectly tailored to the defense Father Steve encourages us to employ.
This is not to say that these populations couldn't also be ignored. It is only to point out that there is method, here. The neurotic doesn't exist in RH who believes that he is some poor misunderstood soul -- that, like all his puppets, is a contrivance. And all of it is aimed at bringing down this board.
The answer, I'm afraid, is that the board will die. And it's a damn shame.
But there is another side to Father Steve's recommendations. The tactic he recommends, and the outcomes prophesied, are those of *unmoderated* boards. The answer, then, is simple. The board must be moderated, and unsavory characters such as RH must be banned.
In the history of AWAD, there have, I think, been only two individuals who would have been banned. I do not think, then, that having a moderator poses much of a threat of lack of openness. In fact, since so many good contributors have left the board, the appointment of a moderator and removal of RH would probably greatly enhance the openness of the board.
I believe that lack of moderation on this board has become irresponsible.
I don't think that Anu needs to be presented with lots of examples of abuse. They are plentiful. And this thread, which is gratifying to read, speaks loud and clear.
Insel
I completely agree with insel.
If Anu in the final resort does not face up to the problems of no moderation, we have alternative forums available, so have the option to decamp en masse. Unmoderated boards are not viable in the face of madness.
Dear Friends:
I have made this offer many times before, and honored it faithfully each time, and I will once again now for the record.
Anyone who leaves me in peace will be left in peace in return.
There is no mean-spirited, abusive strategy that some of you people have not practiced on me, alone or in concert, including trying to intimidate me in my personal life by spreading lies, in the beginning in malacious PMs, and now even onscreen.
I cautioned some months ago that I will no longer absorb your abuse without answering back. As you know, I tried ignoring the warmongering of ASp and Of Troy by turning the other cheek for over three months, from December '04 through March '05, and it didn't work. My refusal to respond to their insults and innuendos only escalated the ferocity of their abuse.
While I will continue to defend myself when attacked without provocation, I will continue to do so honorably. I will not resort to the tactics which some of you employ against me - including the use of vulgarities, malacious PMs which include libels, contrived complaints about inoffensive posts, and constant harping and sermonizing and haranguing about real or imagined peccadillos, current or ancient.
Some of you don't like my limericks. Fine. I moved them into limerick threads in "Wordplay and Fun" to keep you happy.
Dear Friends:
I have made this offer many times before, and honored it faithfully each time, and I will once again now for the record.
Anyone who leaves me in peace will be left in peace in return.
There is no mean-spirited, abusive strategy that some of you people have not practiced on me, alone or in concert, including trying to intimidate me in my personal life by spreading lies, in the beginning in malacious PMs, and now even onscreen.
I cautioned some months ago that I will no longer absorb your abuse without answering back. As you know, I tried ignoring the warmongering of ASp and Of Troy by turning the other cheek for over three months, from December '04 through March '05, and it didn't work. My refusal to respond to their insults and innuendos only escalated the ferocity of their abuse.
While I will continue to defend myself when attacked without provocation, I will continue to do so honorably. I will not resort to the tactics which some of you employ against me - including the use of vulgarities, malacious PMs which include libels, contrived complaints about inoffensive posts, and constant harping and sermonizing and haranguing about real or imagined peccadillos, current or ancient.
Some of you don't like my limericks. Fine. I moved them into limerick threads in "Wordplay and Fun" to keep you happy.
I thought it best to quote this post in its entirety before you go back and change it.
As I recall (and my memory is faulty! I don't keep records), first you decided to polarize with tsuwm and Faldage. Now it's Helen and me. There may have been others in between.
The big picture is you exhibit all the traits of a troll; the main one in your case is the apparent need for this board to feed your ego. Your disruptions are driving away people, both oldtimers and newcomers, who want to discuss words and language by the dozens. Why stay at a party when no one wants you here? I've got an idea: start a blog and you can post to your heart's content and keep Paris Hilton happy at the same time.
Your disruptions are driving away people
There is a very simple solution to this, ASp.
If you are opposed to "disruptions", stop causing them, or instigating them, or defending those who do.
I think everyone should be treated with politeness and respect. Including you. Including me.
So let's just bring it to an end, shall we? For the good of the Board.
We could go on forever reliving the past, trying to figure out who started what, when. But that "eye for an eye" stuff has never gotten us anywhere.
As I said to Of Troy some time ago, I say to you now.
I will not insult you, if you stop insulting me.
It's just as simple as that, ASp.
I think we owe it to he Board to bury the hatchet.
Yes, many times.. and then you "POWER Post" making long, long post, (one after another, after another) that have nothing to do with the topic on hand, or you pull out a sock puppets (see PLUTARCH: AKA to learn all the aliases, if you are unfamiliar) and have pretend dialogues, or you post 'advertizements' for your limerick of the day or your limerick news. Do you want a site for limericks? creat one. THIS IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL DOMAIN TO SUBVERT TO YOUR PURPOSES.
and News? tom cruise isn't news. if i wanted to read about him or paris hilton, i could subscribe to People or watch the garbage for free on TV. i don't need to pay for IPS, and pay for a telephone call.
Tell me, do you let anyone post anything they want about any subject (say reams of tex about Paris Hilton)on the Emerald Ash Borer site? should i go try? I'll cut and paste your posts (your MacGuffins and other garbage over there.) How about that, Mr. Holland? YOu are so proud of all you have to contribute, lets share it with wider audience.
and then you "POWER Post" making long, long post, (one after another, after another)
Dear Of Troy:
What are your incessant self-righteous, pontificating diatribes if not "POWER Posts"?
"The sheer dishonesty of editing a post without including a caveat speaks ill of that person, and I will no longer post to a thread on which he has posted."
I'm staying out of the argument. But I have to admit I do this all the time - usually without thinking about it. I reread a post and realize I've made grammatical or spelling errors or left out a sentence that connects two thoughts. If this were a more formal venue or if I were making extensive edits, I might include such a note.
The sheer dishonesty of editing a post without including a caveat speaks ill of that person
My dearest FF, the dishonesty refered to does not involve going back to tweak spelling or grammatical errors. The reference is to those that post an inflammatory post that provokes an equally inflammatory answer wherein the original poster goes back and alters their post to make it appear that they have not written anything inflammatory. There is nothing dishonest about not noting the type of changes you point out. Me, I'm staying out of this argument as well.
I think -- I hope -- the issue has become moot.
Cautiously let's see if the waters do indeed remain tranquil (or at least more tranquil) so those who are interested may stay, and participate, undistracted.
(Trying, as always, to be the voice of Reason. Bill did it better.)