Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5598378" data-attributes="member: 54877">This is true. And it leads directly to a very common tactic, shown here in its baldest and most extreme form (it is often more subtle): X wants to stir up trouble, and knows the above, and is savvy enough not to butt into such a hornets nest head on. Instead X will say something that is easy to say, kind of right if you look at it cross-eyed in bad light, but difficult to concisely refute. X will very carefully not stake out much of a position, in order to "move the goal posts" over and over.  In a well-moderated board, such as this one, people will try to give X the benefit of the doubt and will discuss this position in good faith. X will twist and turn, refuse to engage key points, pounce on any misstep from any "opponent", as a distraction from the central discussion. And then to cap it all off, after X has been completely and utterly banished from any reasonable persons' consideration of having a point--X will wait a few days or weeks and start it all over again on something else. And with a lot of chutzpah, X will eventually get around to revisiting the original topic--totally ignoring any objection that was ever made to it in the previous exhaustive discussion. I'm not talking about X refusing to change his mind. That's his choice. But if someone has bothered to write several thousand words in a discussion with you that gets really detailed, you at least owe them the courtesy of factoring in their objections into your next round--if only a comment that an earlier discussion took place, but you still aren't buying it. One would almost think that X was more motivated by an agenda to put out propaganda than to discuss ... Naw, that can't possibly be it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> People get used to seeing X before X fully manifests, because they don't want to waste their time with a propagandist (naturally). This causes people to develop radar for X that sometimes makes mistakes. Thus the newbie that gets blind-sided with a poorly worded post that steps into previous mine fields.  The same guy can call me on the phone. I can be polite. Then he can keep making the same stupid call. At some point, I'll stop being polite. At some point, I'll stop being polite with caller guy number 123456 a lot faster than I was with number 1. This is why we have the "do not call" list. On a forum, we don't have the ability to tell X, "You know, A, B, C, and me were all having a fine discussion on this until you butted in for the 23rd time with your inane propaganda. I suppose we could all just not respond, but D is new in the discussion, and still doesn't know you are a complete jerk (at least on the current subject*), and we aren't allowed to tell him in no uncertain terms not to waste his time on you." * Were it not sometimes subject by subject, ignore lists would be far more effective. The fundamental hole in the "everyone be polite" idea is that we have to treat the propgandist, who is exactly not polite, as if he were.  Not that I have an answer.  Mods aren't parents dealing with 5 year olds in the back seat, "not" poking each other.  It just seems that way sometimes. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> I know it is a pipe dream, and would be a nightmare for moderaters to do, but sometimes I wish the moderator text was: "Answer the freaking question that was ask of you and take a position, even if it is, 'I don't know', or shut up about this topic for the next six months, on pain of a suspension." <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> I guess the only positive way to get around any of that would be to have closed discussions, invitations only, where the people that started the discussion were the only ones allowed to post, unless they specifically invited someone else. And no doubt that would have a whole host of other problems. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/angel.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":angel:" title="Angel    :angel:" data-shortname=":angel:" /></blockquote>

Verification