Has Trolling Increased, here on Metabunk?

MikeC

Closed Account
Is it just me, or has there been a fairly massive in upsurge in trolling recently? My definition of trolling on here includes:

Repetitive assertion without evidential support;
Deceptive quote mining or misrepresenting same (which dose at least involve some attempt at evidential support for a position);
Failure to engage in meaningful discussion
Failure to address any actual issue
Gish galloping (not so much as before tho')
Dismissal of verifiable evidence or rational analysis because of source

I've added a couple of people to "ignore" who I believe added nothing to any discussion due to only exercising 1 or more of these characteristics.

I think it is possibly tied to increased exposure of "METAPUNK" through the likes of Madison Moonstar, Mick's exposure on Joe Rogan, the Max Bliss hoax situation, the name of the site being mentioned more often in chemmie FB pages etc.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There has been a bit of shift towards just posting stuff simply to bolster claims, which is why I've refined the posting guidelines, and am starting to clamp down more.

The Joe Rogan thing certainly raised awareness to some new folk, but it also got the regular chemtrail crowd a bit riled up.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
There's been an influx of posters whose contribution just plain annoys me because it is just rhetoric and philosophical objection to the premise of debunking, which is definitely trolling because of where we are.

I am interested when someone counters with something that is actually tangible and may have merit, but when it is just pseudo-intellectual psycho-analysis of what possible social brain-washing would make someone interested in debunking, I feel the urge to fight back which is not productive.

I think it may also just be that some of the threads have reached their impasse and so nothing's left but ad-hominem. It'd be nice to know how to break that deadlock.

People should be given a chance to engage in debate who may be a bit clueless as to what is expected at first in presenting an ordered argument, but there is no excuse for them to continue and not upgrade their tactics for debate once it's been made clear to them.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Like I said, I'm clamping down.

I think some of the more alternative minded people find Metabunk a nice place to post because they get sensible conversation with intelligent people who seem to take their ideas seriously. However there's a danger that type of things will just become mostly noise - lots of "look at this evidence of stuff" type posts, or ridiculous wastes of time like the Boy Scout thread, or "evidence of symbolism" type things.

I look at JREF, which I admire greatly, but it seems to be a few nuggets of brilliant and useful research hidden in a mound of chatting and banal challenges.

I want Metabunk to be about debunkings of substance, and about the substance of debunking. Quality over quantity.

You can't please all of the people, and I don't intend to.
 
Last edited:

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I agree with Pete about the posters who use the, if you don't believe a conspiracy or piece of bunk you believe anything the government says, type of arguments or hurt feelings for being labeled a CTer. I think these types of posts should be reported. The poster needs to know this isn't a valid argument.

This is just my thoughts on something else. There seems to be a few regular posters who's sole agenda is to fear monger or promote hate in some way. I believe some of these posters just like to argue and serve no real purpose after awhile. Their claims are usually based on their beliefs that, some higher power is trying to make them sick, kill or imprison them. Debunking that type of belief is typically impossible to do. I just wonder how long you let someone sap the energy out of the forum before you just decide they will gain nothing more from their time here.

I guess a good goal is to focus on removing bunk and not trying to change minds.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I noticed it when the Sandy Hook hoax started. I think a new generation discovered metabunk.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I've mentioned Metabunk favorably on sites like that. Should I not do that?
The goal isn't to keep Metabunk secret. It's to improve that signal to noise ratio, to keep the focus. This is not a conspiracy site, it's a site about analyzing claims of evidence. So I just don't want to give people that idea that it's a great place to post their gish gallops and speculation. There's other places for that.
 

dirk

New Member
OK, but in some cases the topic is extremely complex, and in fact hardly 'debunkable'. Take the WTC7 case. It s just too complicated to find the "truth". Some people becoming very frustrated,because their truth isn't accepted, which is based on a hypothetical theory not on evidence, on both sides!
At that moment, they lose respect, and the shouting start... I think the solution is only to start threads which are debunkable. The existence of God will not be proven on this site.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
OK, but in some cases the topic is extremely complex, and in fact hardly 'debunkable'. Take the WTC7 case. It s just too complicated to find the "truth". Some people becoming very frustrated,because their truth isn't accepted, which is based on a hypothetical theory not on evidence, on both sides!
At that moment, they lose respect, and the shouting start... I think the solution is only to start threads which are debunkable. The existence of God will not be proven on this site.
Yes, with WTC7, it really needs breaking down into the base parts of claims that can actually be verified. Otherwise you stop at ""It seems like to me that WTC7 could not have fallen because it was too strong" When really you want to get into much more specific points like how much a beam would expand when heated to 600C. Or really from a debunker's perspective, you should be looking at very specific claims made by people like AE911, or Griffiths.
 

Clock

Senior Member.
Repetitive assertion without evidential support;
Deceptive quote mining or misrepresenting same (which dose at least involve some attempt at evidential support for a position);
Failure to engage in meaningful discussion
Failure to address any actual issue
Gish galloping (not so much as before tho')
Dismissal of verifiable evidence or rational analysis because of source
You forgot long rambling posts, in which member needs about 2-3 paragraphs to prove his/her point. (But I guess that's Gish Gallop, right?)

I don't know, it's typical conspiracy theorist behavior for some people (skeptic project used to be full of people like this) who don't really care in having meaningful discussions. Here is a good example: http://skepticproject.com/site/hate-mail/list/
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I've posted plenty of things with more than 3 paragraphs. Length alone is not an indicator of bunk.

I've also seen rambles that were actually quite concise. Just meaningless.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mike To save me trolling further Practical Debunking 2
HappyMonday AC Griffiths Memorial video, and attendent trolling. General Discussion 11
FuzzyUK Multiple Infant Vaccines Linked To Dramatically Increased Mortality Health and Quackery 4
Spongebob Climate Change Why it is NOT being caused by increased CO2 emissions from humans Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Leifer Can the admins here, see our unposted ideas as we type them ? Site Feedback & News 8
Svartbjørn The Solar System.. To Scale (just for fun, nothing to debunk here) General Discussion 0
Trailspotter Here be dragons UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
R How much blood should there be here? Boston Marathon Bombings 7
qed How did I end up down here? Escaping The Rabbit Hole 14
Rusty Far Eye More information videos here. Contrails and Chemtrails 8
Eddie Explosions in WTC lobbies? [Was: Nothing to see here?] 9/11 57
Alchemist Who's bunk here? FOX News Reporters or Monsanto? Conspiracy Theories 12
BlueCollarCritic AGENDA 21 - Not Here And Not A Concern, Right? Conspiracy Theories 5
Mick West Welcome Thread - New Members Post Here General Discussion 1959
JRBids Question for the pilots here Contrails and Chemtrails 37
Clock Here we go again... General Discussion 3
K New here. Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Jay Reynolds What is Carnicom Doing here? Health and Quackery 17
Pogopoint99 Ice Storm Geoengineered – Here is Your Proof! Contrails and Chemtrails 12

Related Articles

Top