• Trolls and other mysterious and unwanted posters 2 February 25 - 3:56 am

In the very early days of NitCentral discus, there was an argument on the TAS board, caused by somebody who went by the name Digger. Phil had to be brought in to intervene. Digger still posted occasionally on other boards, but soon disappeared. He returned sometime later, to the Trek and Red Dwarf boards. He could also be seen,using his real name of Dave Jeffries, making general complaints, eventually culminating in a bashing of all Trekkies on the "Why are we so hated" board in the Classic Trek Sink. Many people impersonated him, and he left. He later posted on the Groaners board in the NextGen Sink, making a personal flame based on Religious Musings, and confessed to being both Digger and Dave Jeffries. He has not been definitively seen since, but there was a post made a few months ago by "Big Dave" on the shortlived Nitcentral Drama board, saying "What is this carp [sic]?"

Names: Dave Jeffries, Digger, Digsy, TheDig, Dig Dum Dum, NitDigDoDah, SatanDigNit, An Old Friend Returns. Email: satanson3@aol.com

He has also made some sensible posts, under his various names, concerning the Simpsons at Nitcentral.

For more info on this person look at the TAS board, episodes "More Tribbles, More Troubles", "Bem", and the TAS: Terrible or Not? topic on the TAS board, Why Are We So Hated on the Classic Trek Sink, Thoughts on TV Sci-fi on the Kitchen Sink, the Groaners board in the NextGen Sink and anywhere where there's an archive of Simpson board debates.

Also, while Dave was making his flames on the Classic Trek episode boards (someone pretended to be Rodnberry, might be him) there was another board set up on the Classic Trek Sink called "Star Trek sux loosers". It was deleted, but it didn't seem to be the Dave Jeffries style (it was written in "kewlspeak")

If you have any more citings of trolls, mention them here.

Go to RM, or over to the Voyager boards.

Names are not needed, they now who wthe yare.

yeah over on hithikers too

Is one of them British?

Dave Jeffries and Peter are both British.

Also, for a Peter-esque troll go to the NextGen board, Season 5, The Outcast.

Dave Jeffries can also be seen on the Favourites section of the Star Trek Novels board.

I think the first appearence of "Digger" was actually on the old "State of Sci-Fi TV" which was one of the earliest boards on nitcentral. All the posts he made to that board were eventually deleted.
There was also an individual who identified himself only as "?" on the "Man Trap" board who posted several rants against Leonard Nimoy for some reason or other. When people told him to cut it out, he responded by spamming the board with obscentities, which were quickly deleted.
Another individual identified himself only as "mf" and made several snide and derogatory remarks about others' posts. And then of course there was the guy who launched a personal attack on moderator D. Stuart for no apparent reason. Most trollers, however, choose to post under "anonymous", not having the courage to reveal their true identity. Of course Nitcentral has always had a handful of posters who choose to personally attack others on slight provocation. Maybe that's just their idea of fun.
Note to moderators: if you suspect someone on your board of impersonating someone else, or trolling under an alias, you can check their IP addresses in the administration mode for your board. Though the IP's don't always work for all posters, they might be able to determine someone's true identity.

And then of course there was the guy who launched a personal attack on moderator D. Stuart for no apparent reason

I wonder if this is the same person who created that board on the Voyager Kitchen Sink about Richie Vest's favorite things to... never mind... about. I should have checked to see if it were spelled "favourite" or "favorite", I guess...

Also, there was the person who posted under the names "Dr Gonzo", "Z", "Guybrush", "daves not here", "view this... oh wait, you cant" and possibly also "vegan vito" around December on the cybersoap Port Mike in the MST3K folder. This could have been the person with the blazing_I e-mail address from other MST3K boards (and the MiSTings section also contains some other odd-ball posts)

Probably the strangest of trolls would be the one who posted as Anonymous on February 6 on LICC Discussion 5 and the front page of Political Musings (though that was deleted).

Is it just me, or does this moderator use an ad hominem attack questioning my intelligence?
(BTW, I'm not insulted, but someone who can change my posts is dangerous.)

Note from acting moderator (have no idea where Phil got the idea I didn't quit. Because I still don't want this job, but I really am starting to hate Blue Berry.) : You are the one who is wrong and that is a fact. Nothing you can say can change it. IT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INSURRECTION WRITER TO KEEP CONTINUITY WITH WHAT CAME BEFORE. ONLY SOMEONE WITH A LOW I.Q. WOULD EXPECT THE DS9 WRITERS TO KEEP CONTINUITY WITH A MOVIE THAT DIDN'T EXIST YET. THAT IS A FACT!

Because the poster in question is still at least pro forma moderator of that topic, I have brought the situation to the Chief's attention.

DS9 is temporarily moderated by the Roving Mods. I have started the topic in question with a fresh thread in the Kitchen Sink, and left the old one closed.

See the front page of the DS9 topic for more information.

Also, while Dave was making his flames on the Classic Trek episode boards (someone pretended to be Rodnberry, might be him)...
Actually, Padawan, 'twas I who originally posted as Rodnberry when I first came to NC. It was (obviously) a diminutive of Gene Roddenberry, as sort of an homage to him, and I've said as such when I later began posting as MarkN because Mark Morgan posted using his name and then there was a few other Marks, too. That's why Mark Morgan sometimes calls me "Mark2", even though I started posting on NC before he did, but he was the first to use his real name.

For people who aren't members, but they still post nits, comments, and obsverations, what factors are are used to determine if they are a "troll or an unwanted poster?"

You aren't required to have an account. In fact, for a while, only moderators had an account. Then for a short time, due to certain trolls, only users with passwords could post on PM and RM. That restriction has since been lifted.

As for trolls, let me (mis)quote Justice Potter Stewart: "I know one when I see one".

BTW, Watcher, you aren't one. If you're interested, search PM and RM for posts by a person named "Peter", to see what constitutes a troll.

What about my aliases:

my other main names that I use (to add variety) : - Polls Voice. - Torque, Son of Keplar. -

I’ve also posted as other names (just to be silly) having my name match my topic: Porthos, Son of Archos. - D. Bones. - Mr. Woof, I mean Worf. - Han Solo. - Macbeth and King Lear. - Feed the Homeless, go to jail. - Freezer Burn. (freezer burn was trying to answer a question but after several tries, he just kind of forgot what the original point of the topic/question was.

Are any of these people unwanted? If so, I can kill them.

Watcher, I can't speak for every Mod, but to me a troll is someone who obviously cares more about fomenting trouble than furthering the discussion.

Now, that doesn't mean any diversion from the topic at hand is trolling; but if that diversion has a specific purpose, to upset or aggravate, then that poster is a troll and will get no respect in this Sink.

Watcher,

As one often accused of being a troll, let me say that Poll's voice is not nearly a troll. A Troll either post things like:

A) Unbelivable! for just $9.99 a month I was able to straighten my eyelashes!!!! You can too if you order now at whater link...

B) Blue Berry I'm amazed you can be so $tupid as to believe that tripe about whatever issue is at hand. Why obviously I'm right and you are an ignorant moron. Try this site (link) to open your eyes outside your little world.

C) I know you take your little religious beliefs seriously, and I think it is so cute the way you delude yourself. (Don't ever change, babe.) However, here is the TRUTH.

I hate to disappoint you, Watcher. You are actually polite. Just a word of advice: the moderator of the Kitchen Sink and non-SciFi novels is real hard, um, butt.

Only kidding, kerriem. You know I'd never post anything bad about your glouriousness, right?

Actually, Padawan, 'twas I who originally posted as Rodnberry when I first came to NC. It was (obviously) a diminutive of Gene Roddenberry, as sort of an homage to him - MarkN

I know this was posted over a year ago, but I haven't seen it till now!

What I meant was, a troll was making posts under the name of "Rodnberry", presumably pretending to be MarkN. The post was deleted by the moderator IIRC and someone relpied "I don't think that post was really made by Rodnberry".

(Jeez, I wish my memory was this good for important stuff!)

The following are reposted from the something I've noticed... thread - Mod:

One nice thing I've noticed about this board, is that there seem to be far less arguments and flame wars then on other boards.

Yes we do get pranks here and some arguments and other issues but their usually dealt with quickly and tend not to last otherwise.

I often find myself wondering why? What I mean, is why is it other boards tend to have problems while this boars seems to be fairly calm and civil?

I have a few theories..

* This board is well moderated with a lot of moderators, so if flame wars do happen, they are quickly extinguished

* I've found the general maturity level on this board to be considerably higher then on others. Not sure why, perhaps it's the subjects on it.

* Ironically enough, there is far less nitpicking over things like spelling and grammar, something many boards are plagued with.

(anyone have any others?)

You obviously weren't around for the epic flamewars with He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named. We had quite a thing.

Phil -- the author of the "Nitpickers' Guides", all around good guy, and the man who so kindly lets us play around here -- has laid down some ground rules. Flamewars tend to be centralized down in RM (Religious Musings) and PM (Political Musings).

After the epic flamewars, Phil instituted what are called "Roving Moderators". They take any flameworthy/ad hominem/etc posts, and move them to the Garbage Dump, for the board moderator to look at.

Looking at my response, I suspect it's your first theory, more than anything else.

I also tend to theorize that people who would enjoy slogging through the minutae in Phil's Nitpick Guides (though I don't know for sure how many posters here were attracted to Nit-C because of them) represent certainly personality traits: Observant, detail-oriented, methodical in reasoning, loves to argue a point, etc. As such, a lot of the people here are Trek fans who like conversing with othersm, and since the franchise has been around for 37 years, a good number of them will be adults. There is, of course, variation in this, in that we've had our share of flamewars posters who can't get along well with others very well, but I think it holds true for the most part, particularly now.

This contrasts with other message boards, like the ones at the Internet Movie Database for example, which is populated by a good number of teens and pre-teens who, emboldened by both the anonymity of the Internet, and moderators that are either absent or silent, even when deleting posts, sometimes lash out at those who disagree with them with things they'd never say in person. There are plenty of thoughtful, friendly, and polite posters there who can disagree with you and still coexist with you, but the presence of less-constructive posters is greater than it is here, IMO.

It's why I think our little corner of the web is special, and very valuable.

I agree that because everyone knows of the roving mods they tend to behave better. I mean look at ain't it cool news; discussions of films are frequently drowned out by people using the Beavis and Butthead method; which is say the guy you're argueing with likes gay sex in the most graphic terms and see how many times the phrase "nut sack" can be used in a single sentence.

You obviously weren't around for the epic flamewars with He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named. We had quite a thing.

Actually, I've been arround since the board was still pretty new and I had actually forgotten about those flame wars from the past. I actually think of this more as an example of how good this board is then faulty memory though, bascially a lot of the flame wars are removed so they don't take long before their forgiven and forgotten.

Phil -- the author of the "Nitpickers' Guides", all around good guy, and the man who so kindly lets us play around here -- has laid down some ground rules. Flamewars tend to be centralized down in RM (Religious Musings) and PM (Political Musings).

I think that's another reason this board is good, it's because it is so vast. I don't often check those areas, mainly because of the flamewars and because the flamewars are contained, theyc an be easy to miss.

After the epic flamewars, Phil instituted what are called "Roving Moderators". They take any flameworthy/ad hominem/etc posts, and move them to the Garbage Dump, for the board moderator to look at.

Which again, is a very good idea

So yes, that's what I thought, it's mostly good moderation, as well as a higher overall maturity level. Although we have had out share of flamewars, they've been contained and since mostly forgotten.

All the same, we haven't had *any* good political discussions lately, though I suspect that has more to do with their being very little left to say!

I think the "Create New Conversation" button should be removed from TOS Kitchen Sink. Somebody over there has added a lot of unnecessary discussions.

Still waiting to see if Phil the Chief appoints me as official ClassicTrek Mod. Doing that falls outside of the Roving Mods mandate.

Not sure if this is the correct board, but is anyone else getting the following returned to their nitcentral email address?

----- The following address(es) had permanent fatal errors ----- ; originally to anna (unrecoverable error)
The mail system encountered a delivery failure, code -18.
This failure could be due to circumstances out of its control,
please check the transcript for details
----- Transcript of session follows ----- Your message is being returned since it seems to contain the W32/Mydoom.a@MM virus

I’ve not specifically had that message but I have just had a mail returned from an address that I have never used; and I’ve also had an email from CCabe’s Nitcentral address which has nothing but an attachment which I have no intention of opening (and which I’m convinced that he never sent in the first place). I think it’s part of the Mydoom problem because I’ve also had mails returned to my home email, again from addresses that I’ve never heard of.

I haven't used my nitcentral address in over a year. (Also, I don't think it is possible to get a legitimate email from a nitcentral address, with the possible exception of the chief's address.) Any email from ccabe@nitcentral is fake,

Art, the MyDoom worm/virus/trojan masks as a mail bounce. It's "supposed" to looke like that.

I got a mail bounce back using my NitCentral account as well. I immediately deleted it.

Me too. A virus in the Nitcentral server, it seems like, since Nitcentral.com addresses are simply redirects. I sure don't have one on my personal computer or mail account.

Is it still okay to visit this site? or is there a risk of contamination...

It's fine to visit here.

Guys, the MyDoom emails are not real bounces. You're in somebody's address book at your NitC address, and the virus generated a fake "bounce from you" message to you.

Thanks guys. Was worried it had somehow got my address from my computer.

Also, there is an actual virus thread a little further down the list from this topic.

Has AnoMatt shown up in the Bush Jr. board?

I can't tell for certain. Some posts look like his style but I really can't determine it. One was an outright Pick-a-fight type, while another didn't seem to fit real well with the topic.

You're talking about "NGen"'s posts, PV? They are the work of a troll, no doubt. But as far as it being our Kahanonmous poster, I dunno. Bizarre at any rate.

I did notice that "NGen" posted on the Music Board, too.

The only way to be certain would be looking at the ISP, but yeah, even if it's not him, something needs to be done.

This is an offshoot over the mini-discussion at Legal Musings.

What exactly do you define as a troll?

Example: A lot of people around here use Peter as an example of a troll. I never saw Peter as a troll. I saw him as a person who could become offensive, who held passionate political views, and a person that would occassionally resort to flames.

Now, to me, that person is not a troll. It's a person that needs to be closely monitored, perhaps have a few of his posts deleted at times, and perhaps discover that this place is not for him...but it's not a troll. In fact, you could argue that the description above applies to many long-term posters. My friend Brian Webber certainly loses his cool at times and puts down a few flames or things that I find offensive, but he's definitely not a troll and nobody has ever called him a troll.

The guy that keeps posting stuff about Rabbi Kahane or anti-black stuff...that's a troll. That guy is not interested in a debate; he posts under various fake handles, throwing quick one-line things apparently designed to make people mad.

So...how would you define a troll then?

Mike, if someone anonymously spammed Nit-C, or posted links to pictures of gay porn, would that person qualify in your view as a troll?

Those are trollish behaviors. The person is not necessarily a troll.

Peter certainly dipped deep into Trollish Behavior.

The endless smiley posts. The endless SpamCoded posts. The link to the huge anus picture.

Mike, if a person exhibits such trollish behavior, then why would you say they're not a troll? Peter did those things, and repeatedly.

First of all, let me say that I was absent from NitCentral for about a two year period and Peter could very well have become a troll (I missed the anus, thankfully, and have only vague recollections of the other pieces of behavior). However, Peter was called a troll by many BEFORE he displayed those behaviors, IIRC.

Peter is admittedly a very extreme example, being as though he got banned. What about Matt Pesti or Derrick Vargo? Both were/are called trolls, and both did none of the trollish behaviors you described.

BTW, don't think I'm trying to say "Peter got a bad rap or anything." I'm merely trying to curb the usage of the word troll to refer to any post that offends someone.

Considering he considers himself pro-evolution and (apparently) just to be annoying argued in favor of creationism...

...and considering MJ and I spent three days one weekend Dumping a post he insisted on reposting over and over again...

...and considering he posted pictures of aborted fetuses inline...

...and considering the Roving Moderators exist primarily because of Peter...

...the empirical evidence strongly suggests he was trolling.

But not all the time, admittedly. Sometimes he was just being fiercely argumentative, but other times it was clear he considered us all fools and deserving whatever we got. (He admitted signing people up for porn spam. Kinda.)

Still, he committed genuine acts of Trolling more than three times. Does that make him a troll, just in my opinion? Yup. He wasn't a troll all the time, but enough.

Wasn't a troll all the time, but enough, may be the best way to characterize Peter, actually.

But Peter's an easy one. What about the other usages of the epithet troll?

Mostly just frustration on one's part, Mike. When someone enters a conversation aggressively ("Well, you're all wrong") the first temptation is to become angry at them. The particular poster who generated this thread certainly entered the conversation with a post that was absolutely certain of its correctness and that was that for the rest of you and your opinions. Hard to respond to that positively.

I've had serious issues with both Derrick and Matt Pesti but they seem willing to be reasonably disagreeable, mostly. Neither (to my recollection) has done anything that immediately makes me think that they are posting just to be hostile. (Don Pedro is an easy target as he could pick a fight with anybody for anything. That must take some skill.)

Sometimes posts cross the line to downright insulting but I think we all do that.

Perhaps a different word could be coined to describe the sort of people you're talking about Mark, to differentiate them from more conventional trolls (like the Acolyte of Rabbi Kahane).

"Silly Party"?

MikeC: However, Peter was called a troll by many BEFORE he displayed those behaviors, IIRC.
Luigi Novi: That may very well be, but it wasn’t by myself, and when I use the word now, I refer only to those aspects of his behavior that do qualify for that label.

MikeC: What about Matt Pesti or Derrick Vargo? Both were/are called trolls, and both did none of the trollish behaviors you described.
Luigi Novi: I don’t recall any such behavior from Matt Pesti, so you’d have to discuss that with those who claimed that he was. And although I don’t recall anyone calling Derrick a troll, he has exhibited trollish behavior on an occasion or two, in particular with his recent unprovoked insults toward me, including one Anonymous post made on the Spider-Man movie board that I suspect might have been him.

Mark Morgan: Considering he considers himself pro-evolution and (apparently) just to be annoying argued in favor of creationism..
Luigi Novi: I wasn’t aware he ever argued in favor of creationism. I only recall him posting here in support of evolution. Where did he argue in favor of creationism, Mark? Here, or on your site?

All right, you seem to be using the definition of the word "troll" correctly. But there have been others, including myself at times, that throw troll around to anyone who posts views that have the capability of offending someone.

A historical note
The trollish behavior behavior that led to my first suggesting to the Chief the creation of Roving Mods involved a person or persons who became angry with moderator D. Stuart. They posted a number of insults regarding him on a many different boards. Some of these boards had gone dead and/or had lost their moderators. This resulted in the ad hominem posts staying up for a long period of time until Phil was able to deal with them.

True, but the meeting that resulted in the actual creation of the Roving Mods (and of the Garbage Pit) was about Peter.

I remember the D Stuart hate squad. They were fun.

You are correct Mark. I should have stated that as well.

Can we move the discussion regarding Rabbi Kahane Acolyte here?

Yup.

Simply following Occam's Razor, buddy. Aren't his posts here pretty "evident"? And since when does OCD cause you to call black people "n---ers"? Tourette's, maybe, but OCD? - LUIGI NOVI

His use of the word "n-gg-r" (pardon me, Mike) is not even evidence for Tourette's, but that he's more likely a racist. So? Does that mean he's dishonest, or that he doesn't have OCD? As MikeC has pointed out, you're willing to take his words here at face value, but not when he talks about having OCD. Isn't that a bit selective on your part? I mean, I'm annoyed with him, too. But I am currently unwilling to ascribe to malice what can be explained by mental illness. But that's just me.

Everything but the...

Mike, Benn accused me of believing the worst about him without any "evidence." - LUIGI NOVI

Resorting to emotionally charged phrases are we? K. No prob. I mean just because you choose to gloss over that I said - "And yet you seem (emphasis mine) to chose to believe the worst about him despite lacking any evidence one way or another." - no problem. Use the emotionally charged "accused" to your heart content. I mean, I didn't think I was really "accusing" you of anything. Just stating how I thought it looked. But, gee, I guess I was.

The "accusation" (as you want to phrase it) stems from this statement: "As for all this about OCD, I would not take anything he says at face value." Sounds to me like you're unwilling to give him the benefit of any doubt.

Are his posts not evident to anyone who reads them that he is capable of quite offensive behavior? - LUIGI NOVI

No. Not really. We've had some people here who were far more offensive. We still have one who is. (And no, I'm not talking about you. But I'm not going to name names right now.) His posts are overall annoying, but hardly offensive.

Everything but the...

Benn: His use of the word "n-gg-r" (pardon me, Mike) is not even evidence for Tourette's, but that he's more likely a racist. So? Does that mean he's dishonest, or that he doesn't have OCD?
Luigi Novi: I think racism is an indicator of character, and that if someone posts racist bile anonymously, defies the rules of someone’s site, and ignores admonitions to cease this behavior, this calls his character into question, such that choosing to be skeptical about the veracity of statements he makes that could be construed as making him appear more sympathetic is not unreasonable. It is my understanding that in the U.S. court system, jurors are instructed that if they have concluded that part of a witness’ testimony was unreliable for false, they are permitted to conclude that other parts may be as well. (Legal experts, correct me if I’m wrong here.) This is the principle that I am applying here. Thus I believe it is not unfair to be cautious with regards to assertions he makes on another board regarding having OCD, which as far as I know (and I could be wrong here) does not cause one to use racial epithets, nor prevent one from responding to admonitions to others. Even if we assume that OCD causes him to compulsively post, and even if we allow for the possibility that OCD is responsible for the racial epithets, in what way would OCD stop him from responding to those admonitions, "Sorry, guys, I can't help myself"? This does not constitute taking anything at “face value.” It is the reasoning with which I view him and his behavior skeptically—and until further information comes to light—provisionally.

Benn: Resorting to emotionally charged phrases are we? K. No prob. I mean just because you choose to gloss over that I said - "And yet you seem (emphasis mine) to chose to believe the worst about him despite lacking any evidence one way or another." - no problem. Use the emotionally charged "accused" to your heart content. I mean, I didn't think I was really "accusing" you of anything. Just stating how I thought it looked. But, gee, I guess I was.
Luigi Novi: I do not feel that it was inaccurate to use the word “accuse,” nor that it was emotionally charged. I also did not see the use of the modifier “seem” as leading me to conclude otherwise, though perhaps I should have given that more consideration. If you feel my use of this word was inaccurate, or an attempt to be inflammatory, I apologize, for that was not my intention.

Benn: The "accusation" (as you want to phrase it) stems from this statement: "As for all this about OCD, I would not take anything he says at face value." Sounds to me like you're unwilling to give him the benefit of any doubt.
Luigi Novi: To each his own. Me, I simply meant that we should take any statements on his part with a grain of salt.

Benn: No. Not really. We've had some people here who were far more offensive. We still have one who is. (And no, I'm not talking about you. But I'm not going to name names right now.) His posts are overall annoying, but hardly offensive.
Luigi Novi: Agree to disagree, buddy.

I would just chalk this up to a troll if he wasn't so consistent--even his profiles on the various sites he goes to are written in a consistent manner. I think he does have OCD, he is racist, and he has a lot of bitterness.

But I don't think the point was that he we treat him with kid gloves or ignore his annoyances. The point was let's not flame this guy back or make fun of him and if he ever attempts to open up in conversation, let's respond to it with more than "go away, troll."

And Benn, I think I know who you're talking about.

Yeah, Mike, to any long-time Nitcentraller, it should be obvious to whom I refer.

Everything but the...

But I don't think the point was that he we treat him with kid gloves or ignore his annoyances. The point was let's not flame this guy back or make fun of him and if he ever attempts to open up in conversation, let's respond to it with more than "go away, troll." - MikeC

THANK YOU!!!

I am the first to admit that this guy is incredibly annoying and sometimes. But he hardly acts like your typical troll...

His intent (as much as can be gauged by his posts) doesn't seem to be to rile people up... it doesn't even seem to be a purposeful annoyance. As I said, racist observations aside, I don't read any malice from his posts. If his intent were to troll, aren't there far less innocuous ways to go about it? Even Phil admitted that he could find little wrong about his posts, aside from them being somewhat disruptive.

OCD, by the way, is often a symptom of a far larger medical concern... which is why I possibly jumped the gun to conclude that he suffers from a bipolar condition. OCD, ADD, Torette's, etc. are often simply symptoms of an undiagnosed bipolar condition. His mother (according to his post at ask-a-chick.com) suffered from a bipolar condition, which he faults for his OCD. Is it that big a stretch to see that he might possibly suffer from the same affliction himself? And without proof... shouldn't, as I've said before, err on the side of compassion?

But as MikeC pointed out, I am (and no one else, it seems) not suggesting that we should walk on eggshells around this person. But I also don't think that we should post angry retorts each and every time he posts or creates a new board. I think there are far more civilized ways to handle this. The first is to kindly point out that there's already a board for the topic in question. The second is for a Moderator to clean up after him. The third is to encourage the right behavior.

I've seen this individual creating what I think are legitimate boards, generating legitimate discussions (even if he doesn't participate in the discussion since his initial post) and yet he still gets pounced on. I personally find this behavior to be more abhorrent than his role as a pest... and I think some of the reactions against him definitely violate Phil's "good cheer" rule.


It is my understanding that in the U.S. court system, jurors are instructed that if they have concluded that part of a witness’ testimony was unreliable for false, they are permitted to conclude that other parts may be as well. (Legal experts, correct me if I’m wrong here.) This is the principle that I am applying here. - Luigi Novi

I'm not a legal expert... but in a court of law, you can also present a qualified expert witness who can testify as to the mental state of the witness... and who can testify to the witness's ability to testify. We don't have that option here. So to use the court system as your sole basis seems extremely limiting to me.

It is the reasoning with which I view him and his behavior skeptically. - Luigi Novi

But that's the trouble... you're trying to apply reason to a situation where reason doesn't necessarily apply.


Thus I believe it is not unfair to be cautious with regards to assertions he makes on another board regarding having OCD, which as far as I know (and I could be wrong here) does not cause one to use racial epithets, nor prevent one from responding to admonitions to others. - Luigi Novi

As I pointed out a bit earlier, his use of racial epithets, his claim to OCD, and his claim that his mother suffered from a bipolar condition are indications that he suffers from something more complicated.


I think racism is an indicator of character... - Luigi Novi

To be honest, Luigi... so is automatically disbelieving someone who claims they might suffer from a mental disorder. And I, for one, am disappointed.

Darth Sarcasm: OCD, by the way, is often a symptom of a far larger medical concern... which is why I possibly jumped the gun to conclude that he suffers from a bipolar condition. OCD, ADD, Torette's, etc. are often simply symptoms of an undiagnosed bipolar condition.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t know that. Thanks for the info.

Darth Sarcasm: The first is to kindly point out that there's already a board for the topic in question.
Luigi Novi: I think others have done that, and he doesn’t seem very responsive to that tactic.

Darth Sarcasm: I've seen this individual creating what I think are legitimate boards, generating legitimate discussions (even if he doesn't participate in the discussion since his initial post) and yet he still gets pounced on.
Luigi Novi: The vast majority of the boards he has created have not been thus.

Darth Sarcasm: I'm not a legal expert... but in a court of law, you can also present a qualified expert witness who can testify as to the mental state of the witness... and who can testify to the witness's ability to testify. We don't have that option here. So to use the court system as your sole basis seems extremely limiting to me.
Luigi Novi: I wasn’t using the court system as a basis for anything. I was merely explaining why it is perfectly reasonable to draw an assessment of his character vis a vis his honesty based on other offensive aspects of his behavior. I merely mentioned the courts as a formalized example.

Darth Sarcasm: But that's the trouble... you're trying to apply reason to a situation where reason doesn't necessarily apply.
Luigi Novi: How so? I cannot reason that someone who posts racial epithets anonymously and refuses to cease his disruptive behavior may not necessarily be honest, and that his statements about having OCD on other sites should be taken with a grain of salt? That is the matter on which I mentioned reasoning to Benn.

Darth Sarcasm: As I pointed out a bit earlier, his use of racial epithets, his claim to OCD, and his claim that his mother suffered from a bipolar condition are indications that he suffers from something more complicated.
Luigi Novi: If he’s being truthful.

Darth Sarcasm: To be honest, Luigi... so is automatically disbelieving someone who claims they might suffer from a mental disorder.
Luigi Novi: I agree. Good thing I didn’t do so.

Again, I ask, what evidence is there to suggest that he is not telling the truth? It fits in with the (admittedly) scanty facts that we know about him, such as his apparent obsession with the mentally ill.

And I agree with Darth; there have been times where he has posted quite appropriate things and people got mad at him.

For example, he asked about games in the future in Star Trek. ScottN said there was a bowling alley in The Naked Time. Norbert asked "Really?" Scott said "watch the friggin' episode." This isn't a slam on Scott, who I can sympathize with his frustration, but this was one of the few times Norbert was actually participating in a conversation after he started the topic. It would have been perhaps prudent (as Darth pointed out on said board) to cultivate this instead of slamming him to the curb.

Things about him you learn at AllForums (go there and search for The Authentic Fan)


*He has tried to kill himself by touching the third rail and overdosing on Sominex.
*He watches Channel 9 UPN in New York City.
*He was born in 1972. His mother met his father in 1970 and was apparently mentally ill. He hates her. He loves his grandfather who died in 1993, even though they did not have a lot of time to talk. His parents are still alive. From 1986 to 1988, his "idiot father" moved the family to the projects near Coney Island. He has rage over this because (surprise surprise) there was racial tension there.
*He works near a woman named Pam (not her real name) that he obsesses about and has some unhealthy attraction to.
*He was in a psych ward in 2001 (for one night) and is threatening revenge against the doctor that put him there.
*He has a psychiatrist that he despises.
*His last name does not sound Jewish, it sounds Irish. But he is Jewish. He is white.
*He frequented the Yesterdayland website before it went defunct. I get the feeling he is something like Chauncey in "Being There" and after the loss of this website he began wandering out into the Internet world at large.
*He believes in UFOs.
*He works for a health insurance company.
*He watches "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy," apparently reads pornography (or semi-porn) like Playboy and Maxim, and enjoyed the movie "The Girl Next Door."
*He eats KFC.
*He has two tattoos--one of Garfield and one of Rabbi Kahane.
*He nearly died in 2001 thanks to a low blood count induced by taking a drug for his mental illness.
*He is a Democrat that is against Bush. In fact, he advocates Socialist principles.
*He can speak German.

Good thing I didn’t do so. - Luigi Novi

Well, saying "we should take any statements on his part with a grain of salt" certainly implies that.

No, it does not. It conveys a cautious approach to a claim. Not "automatically disbelieving," which connotes have drawn an immediate conclusion.

Sorry...

To treat with a grain of salt means "to treat with skepticism." And skepticism means "a doubting attitude," which means "to disbelieve."

Perhaps in the classical dictionary definition, Darth, but not in the sense with which modern-day skeptics like James Randi, Martin Gardner or Michael Shermer use it, wherein it simply refers to a provisional approach to claims. Not automatically disbeleiving something.

Oh, please... I would much rather you have either stood by your words or reconsidered them. But to quibble over semantics to make assertions that "that wasn't what I meant" when in regular English lexicon that is exactly what you meant is just plain insulting.

To quote Sherman: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." But we're not talking about demon possession, past life regression, telekinesis, spontaneous healing, alien abduction, or even biblical miracles... we're talking about a common, scientifically-recognized psychiatric condition.

Shame on you for trying to link it to paranormal experiences!

What's worse, it I seem to recall Luigi chastizing Brian Webber over just such semantics. (I could be wrong, though.)

Everything but the...

Darth Sarcasm: Oh, please... I would much rather you have either stood by your words or reconsidered them.
Luigi Novi: I am more than willing to consider that my understanding and/or use of the word was incorrect, or that I worded my position in a less-than-clear manner. I am going on what I’ve read by several authors who’ve written on the subject: Stephen Jay Gould, Michael Shermer, Carl Sagan, Bob Park, James Randi, etc., and what I understood was the word meant what I described here.

As Michael Shermer states in Why People Believe Weird Things:

---What then, you may ask, does it mean to be a skeptic? Some people believe that skepticism is a rejection of new ideas or, worse, they confuse skeptic with cynic and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. Skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true.

---The key to skepticism is to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity by continuously and vigorously applying the methods of science.
---The flaw in pure skepticism is that when taken to an extreme, the position itself cannot stand. If you are skeptical about everything, you must be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism spins off the viewing the screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.
---There is also a popular notion that skeptics are closed-minded. Some even call us cynics. In principle, skeptics are not closed-minded or cynical. What I mean by a skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it. In other words, skeptics are from Missouri—the “show me” state. When we hear a fantastic claim, we say, “That’s nice, prove it.”

This is not an unreasonable approach to any claim, even one that is not “fantastic.” It is pretty much the approach that researchers use when trying to understand some phenomena, when criminal investigators try to recreate what happened at a crime scene, etc. Thus, I was at first satisfied that my words were correctly chosen. When you asserted that skepticism means "a doubting attitude," which means "to disbelieve,” this seemed wrong to me, based on what I had read about the word, because it sounded to me like automatically concluding something to be untrue. But it looked to me that you were referencing a dictionary, since you were using quotes, and since I have always found your posts credible, I wasn’t going to arbitrarily disagree with you, so I decided to consider that you were right, and looked in The American Heritage Dictionary, which seemed to corroborate your definition. This surprised me, because it seemed at odds with the meaning as used by Shermer et al. It appeared therefore, that either Shermer, Sagan, etc. use it wrong, or else they use a more technical, more specialized definition that exists as part of their jargon. I cannot explain this dichotomy, so I can only speculate as to why there are two disparate definitions, hence my attempt to do so in my 9.8.04. 3:15pm post.

Darth Sarcasm: But to quibble over semantics to make assertions that "that wasn't what I meant" when in regular English lexicon that is exactly what you meant is just plain insulting.
Luigi Novi: It is not what I meant, and no amount of belief or assertion to that effect on your part will change this.

My position remains the same: AnonyMat may have been telling the truth when he claimed to OCD, or he may not have. When it concerns material made by anonymous posters on Internet message boards, I would prefer not to discount either possibility.

Darth Sarcasm: To quote Sherman: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." But we're not talking about demon possession, past life regression, telekinesis, spontaneous healing, alien abduction, or even biblical miracles... we're talking about a common, scientifically-recognized psychiatric condition.
Luigi Novi: We’re talking about the claim by someone that he has that condition. Not the existence of it, which is in question regarding those other things, which I never mentioned. No one is questioning the existence of OCD or bipolar disorder, but rather, pointing out that it is possible that he isn’t being truthful when he claims to suffer from it.

Whether extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence does not mean that a less extraordinary claim like having OCD requires no evidence. The fact that OCD is not extraordinary does not mean that any time someone claims to have it means that they do.

Darth Sarcasm: Shame on you for trying to link it to paranormal experiences!
Luigi Novi: I didn’t do so. Skepticism is not the sole domain of allegedly paranormal phenomena, I neither mentioned or alluded to such things, and the works by the authors I mentioned do not deal exclusively with it. Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things, in fact, deals with much that has no connection to alleged paranormal phenomena—Holocaust denial, race and IQ, pseudohistory, cults of personality, modern witch hunt crazes prompted by moral panics and mass hysterias, facilitated communication of autistics, hypnosis, polygraphs, animal behavior, etc. Skepticism is an approach to claims. It is not something that is exclusively pertinent to paranormal phenomena, and no one ever said it was.

Benn: What's worse, it I seem to recall Luigi chastizing Brian Webber over just such semantics. (I could be wrong, though.)
Luigi Novi: I criticized Brian for using words in a way that was flat-out incorrect, and failing to explain these uses in a reasonable way. I criticized his admitted use of “loose definitions,” as when he continuously referred to any statement he believed was untrue as a “lie” on the part of the person making it, and defended this reaction by saying that he called something a lie if he “believed” it to be one. The difference here being that both Darth and I were basing our definitions of skepticism on some reference for it, and were able to explain our positions by citing them.

Hey, I understand where Luigi is coming from, but I think I can summarize his position in a succint statement:

We have no idea who this guy is.

Our connection to this person is through pieces of words thrown up on our computer screens. For all we know, he could be a perfectly fine 15-year-old with a lot of free time and a vivid imagination. Or he could really be OCD. I don't know. I think the evidence seems more in favor of him being OCD than not, but there's certainly not overwhelming proof, so Luigi does have a right to be skeptical. In his favor, there are some points--if he had OCD, how is that stopping him from sensible conversation? Why does he just start boards but not answer them or respond to them? I can understand starting all the boards (that could be OCD--you have to start an entirely new board because it's a new thought), but he doesn't really join the conversation at all. Why does he not respond to people who ask questions or correct his forum usage? Some of his posts on AllForums, as I listed, seem unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely). How could this guy function at an insurance company (unless he is Willard)? If he can master his OCD enough to work there, operate a computer well enough to find so many Internet forums, and have detailed knowledge of political and pop culture events, then how come he doesn't know how a bulletin board works?

While I happen to think he does have OCD, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is more here than meets the eye, and that we should not crucify Luigi for being healthily skeptical. This is a nitpicker's site, no?

As Michael Shermer states in Why People Believe Weird Things: - Luigi Novi

Except the claim we're talking about is neither "fantastic" nor "weird."


When we hear a fantastic claim, we say, “That’s nice, prove it.” - Luigi Novi quoting Sherman

Except we're not in a forum where such proof is possible. I mean, what proof are you looking for?

In any case, I've never said, "Well... this person has OCD or a bipolar condition." But in light of the little evidence that we have (both his claim and his behavior), shouldn't we grant him the benefit of the doubt? Or are we too blinded by our annoyance and frustration?


It is not what I meant, and no amount of belief or assertion to that effect on your part will change this. - Luigi Novi

Then, by your argument, I should take anything you say with the same grain of salt. So be it.

I'm much more comfortable dismissing your claims, based on my understanding of you (and that I have no evidence whatsoever that you might suffer from a psychiatric condition or disorder) than I am dismissing those of a stranger whose actions exhibit the traits of what he claimed in a posting.


We have no idea who this guy is. - MikeC

Absolutely true! But in light of the little facts that we have, I prefer to err on the side of caution... or as I've stated before, the side compassion. His behavior is certainly consistent with someone with OCD, ADD, and bipolarism. Shouldn't we give him the benefit of the doubt?

Or are we so consumed with our own sense of rightness (and being wronged) that we are incapable of recognizing that there are people who are different from us... and who act differently than us... and that sometimes it's not because the person is a megalomaniacal troll with nothing better to do with his time.

Is there proof? No. And no one has suggested such. Is there evidence? Well, as you said... yes, there is. Who's to say? I guess this individual is the only one who can say for certain... but even then, how will we believe him? I mean, what "proof" are we looking for? And is this person entirely capable of providing us with that proof?

I agree we should err on compassion, but I still understand Luigi's skepticism. Semantics aside, there is evidence both for and against what this guy is saying.

Anyway, I think it's something of a dorcas farcas. Is Luigi advocating kicking this guy to the curb anytime he opens his mouth? No (at least I hope not). Are you advocating letting this guy run amok posting racist and obnoxious drivel? No. You are saying "Encourage positive behavior and patiently slod through the negative." I think we can agree to that.

I just don't think that skepticism is a healthy approach for maintaining a civil discourse.

It's like Handicap Parking placards... those of us residing in States (like Florida) with removable Handicap Parking placards you can hang on your rearview mirror (as opposed to stickers on a license plate) have all witnessed a person parking in a Handicap space who seems to walk just fine. The readily noticeable signs of a person with a physical disability aren't present... no wheelchair, no cane, no crutch, no apparent discomfort in walking (limping, slow-paced, etc.).

Should I then be skeptical of such an individual's claim to a physical disability? I mean, he's given me no evidence (aside from the placard) that he may have any physical disability. How do I know that he isn't borrowing his elderly grandmother's placard so he can get a closer parking space at the mall, thus robbing a legitimately disabled person the ability to park there? Am I then entitled (not by legal right, but by courtesy and compassion) to publicly express that skepticism?

Is that behavior conducive to a civil environment? Or does it breed distrust and offense? What if this person has another disability that he can't readily prove to me? What if he has a heart condition? What if he's getting medical treatments that exhaust him quickly? Should I expect this person to provide me with documentation from a doctor to prove his assertion?

And how is this kind of behavior conducive to maintaining a community designed for "good cheer"?

Darth, you're starting to lose me. How is this kind of behavior conducive for good cheer? I don't know; how is posting racist drivel and setting up boards for no apparent reason conducive to good cheer?

Re: Handicapped spot. This is a poor analogy. A better analogy would be:

Man with heart condition parks in handicapped spot (perhaps understandable). Takes up three spaces by parking car sideways. Doesn't feed the meter. When cop comes by to ask him what's up, man says "I have a heart condition" and doesn't respond any further. When cop asks him to perhaps park his car in a normal condition, man doesn't respond at all and in fact flagrantly parks his car that way from now on.

How is this kind of behavior conducive for good cheer? I don't know; how is posting racist drivel and setting up boards for no apparent reason conducive to good cheer? - MikeC

I agree about the racist drivel, and Moderators have acted accordingly with those instances.

As for "setting up boards for no apparent reason," I think the reason is very apparent... in fact, it's the same reason all of us post: because he has something to say and wants other people to hear it. While his posting is certainly disruptive (at best) and annoying (at worst), it's the responses to his postings that I think violate the good cheer rule moreso than his posts (again, the racist drivel being the exception).

As for the analogy... I agree that my analogy isn't apt for the entire situation regarding this poster. But it wasn't intended to be. It was an analogy about skepticism and the inappropriateness of being publicly and flagrantly skeptical of another individual in social situations.

I think your analogy is bad for the whole situation because:

1. The driver in your situation isn't just doing something annoying... he's doing something wrong and illegal.

2. The driver's condition has nothing to do with his manner of parking. The poster's alleged condition, however, has everything to do with his manner of posting.

A more apt analogy for the situation is a variation of the one I made on the other board about a customer and his trash...

A customer in a store decides he doesn't want to buy the box of Ritz Crackers. Rather than bring it back to the place it belongs or giving it to an employee to reshelve, he abandons the crackers in the Produce department. It's incredibly frustrating to both the employees who have to find the item and reshelve it and other customers who can't find the item because it's in the wrong spot... not to mention it clutters the store.

Now, which action is going to be more conducive to good cheer if you were an employee seeing this... kindly taking the item when you see the customer setting it down next to the apples and perhaps saying, "Here... let me reshelve that so someone else can find it". Or hostilely and publicly confronting them with, "What's the matter with you? Don't you know there's a place for this?"

And what if you're a customer seeing this? Do you alert an employee to the misshelved item... or take the item and tell the customer, "Here... I'll give it to that employee over there to reshelve"? Or do you hostilely and publicly confront them with, "What's the matter with you? Don't you know there's a place for this?"

And what if there is something the matter with him?

I dunno... I'd rather err on the side of compassion.

Re: my analogy

1. The driver is doing something wrong and illegal. This guy is doing something wrong and illegal; he posts racist drivel and he flagrantly ignores when people and moderators request that he stop flooding the Kitchen Sink with boards.

2. While I understand that someone with a mental condition may have violent spasms or perhaps may not understand how to properly use a Create New Conversation button, as Luigi said, is there some reason why this man NEVER engages in any conversation other than an opening rant or question? Is there some reason why he does not respond to anyone on any of the boards he has posted at? Perhaps these are because of his mental condition, perhaps not.

And regarding your analogy, I think it's a good one, but it would be like this.

Guy puts something on the floor.

Employee: I'll put this away for you sir. Did you know that there was a place to put this?

Guy doesn't answer.

NEXT DAY: Guy puts something on the floor.

Employee: I'll put this away. Don't you remember there was a place to put this?

Guy doesn't answer.

NEXT DAY: Guy doesn't just put one thing on the floor, he puts eight.

Employee: Do you need some help in the store?

Guy doesn't answer.

NEXT DAY: Guy puts stuff on the floor and throws down some counters and breaks things (this would be equivalent to his racist drivel).

Employee: Sir, we would appreciate it if you left.

A few days later, the guy returns and throws more stuff on the floor.

Again, there is nothing wrong with being compassionate and (especially) not dumping on the guy when he tries to actually participate, but to me, you seem to be acting as this guy's apologist. Luigi is saying that he is somewhat skeptical of this guy's story. He is not saying "Boy, I'm just going to slam on this guy all the time no matter what!" He is saying "Maybe this guy's lying, maybe not--it doesn't give him a free pass to break the board rules." (I know this is not what you are saying)

1. The driver is doing something wrong and illegal. This guy is doing something wrong and illegal; he posts racist drivel and he flagrantly ignores when people and moderators request that he stop flooding the Kitchen Sink with boards. - MikeC

Again, the racist remarks are illegal... and they have been dealt with by the Moderators.

As for his flagrant disregard for the other posters' wishes and requests, I question the illegality of it. Didn't Phil (who is supposed to be the ultimate decision-maker) even acknowledge that he finds nothing inherently wrong with this guy's postings? That his incessant postings don't violate any of his rules?


Perhaps these are because of his mental condition, perhaps not. - MikeC

Again... I choose to err on the side of compassion... I think that's the civil thing.


And regarding your analogy, I think it's a good one, but it would be like this... - MikeC

Two things regarding your expansion of the analogy...

1. In our analogy, we can confront the person and know that we are being heard (if not listened to). We don't know if this poster actually revisits most of the boards he creates.

2. Add to your analogy...

NEXT DAY: You're told that the customer in question claimed to a third party that he suffers from OCD or some other disorder.


Again, there is nothing wrong with being compassionate and (especially) not dumping on the guy when he tries to actually participate, but to me, you seem to be acting as this guy's apologist. - MikeC

When the hell did I do that?

Just because I think that we should give him the benefit of the doubt? Just because I believe that his posting method supports his claim?

At no point did I ever say we need to completely disregard or even excuse his behavior! I've only said that positive reinforcement is a better way to go.

Apologist my left nut!

I'm out!

I'm sorry if I offended you. But I was just being honest to myself. TO ME (just to me), YOU SEEMED (doesn't mean you were) to appear to be this guy's apologist. That's my honest opinion.

You said we should believe that this guy has OCD. Okay, fine, that's your opinion (I happen to share it). Luigi disagreed, and to me there happens to be a reasonable amount of evidence to support Luigi's viewpoint. Instead of accepting this, you SEEMED TO ME to try to paint Luigi as callous and incompassionate. I don't like that interpretation.

Regarding the last few points:

1. The racist remarks are illegal, which means there can be no compassionate response to this. They must be deleted (you agree). The board-littering, I agree, is not illegal in and of itself, although I certainly feel that a moderator can make it illegal (exceeding posting of new topoics, for instance). And many of his boards he created are reasonably valid questions. I think each poster should choose to either ignore the question if they don't find it interesting or engage in a civil discussion if they do find it interesting. I think you would agree with me.

And yeah, I guess Phil did say that. I happen to disagree with Phil's interpretation, but it is his board, so I'll comply with his wishes. Just let me say that not caring a tinker's cuss about other people's feelings is not exactly good cheer.

2. If the poster does not revisit any of the boards he created, then the boards are completely worthless and then nobody would care if they were deleted. By not revisiting or discussing, the poster gives the impression that he does not care at all about the discussion. For instance, on AllForums, there are boards where he would continually revisit and ignore all questions/comments posted his way.

3. Yes, the part about OCD is accurate to the analogy and I apologize for leaving it out. So yes, I would be more sympathetic as an employee if the guy, say, came in and put something on the floor, I wouldn't snap at him. But if he insists on putting eight things on the floor at a time, I still have to object and if he persists in ignoring me and my employees, well, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask him to leave the store because he's just too-afflicted to really be in this pubic place.

Again, I apologize if I offended you.

Seems like our "friend" is also obsessed with "Who's Jewish in Star Trek?" as well. Right now he's wondering (AGAIN) on other boards if Barry Waddle is Jewish and if Arik Soong is Jewish. (As if that's a problem or something)

I have a strange feeling he's gonna bring up Rabbi Kahane again or ask the pathetic question "Is Star Trek Anti-Semitic?" again.

MODERATORS KEEP WATCH!

Darth Sarcasm: Except the claim we're talking about is neither "fantastic" nor "weird."
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say it was, nor does the mere title of the book I cite bear relevance. It was the book’s content that I focused on, and I already pointed out in detail why skepticism is not the sole domain of things that are “weird” or “fantastic.” You simply ignored all that. The idea that taking a provisional or cautious approach to claims and noting evidence or lack thereof is somehow solely pertinent to the “fantastic” is obviously false.

Darth Sarcasm: Except we're not in a forum where such proof is possible. I mean, what proof are you looking for?
Luigi Novi: The fact that we’re in a forum were such proof is elusive is why judgment should be reserved. As for what proof I am “looking” for, I didn’t say that I was. Merely noting that we did not have any.

Darth Sarcasm: In any case, I've never said, "Well... this person has OCD or a bipolar condition." But in light of the little evidence that we have (both his claim and his behavior), shouldn't we grant him the benefit of the doubt? Or are we too blinded by our annoyance and frustration?
Luigi Novi: If giving him the benefit of the doubt means acknowledging that he might have those conditions, sure. If it means automatically believing him, and even granting that it accounts for all aspects of his behavior (including his lack of responses to our admonitions), then I would say no.

Darth Sarcasm: Then, by your argument, I should take anything you say with the same grain of salt. So be it.
Luigi Novi: I’m not sure how this follows logically from the exchange that preceded it, but since you bring it up………why not? If I make a claim that you feel is unsubstantiated, and which would not necessarily account for certain aspects of my behavior that others find disruptive, you should take it with a grain of salt.

But have I?

Darth Sarcasm: I'm much more comfortable dismissing your claims…
Luigi Novi: And which claims are those?

Darth Sarcasm: His behavior is certainly consistent with someone with OCD, ADD, and bipolarism.
Luigi Novi: Just out of curiosity, on what knowledge do you base this assertion?

Darth Sarcasm: I guess this individual is the only one who can say for certain... but even then, how will we believe him? I mean, what "proof" are we looking for? And is this person entirely capable of providing us with that proof?
Luigi Novi: I live in Jersey. He lives in New York. If he wants to meet me, I’m game. I could grant provisional credulity to his claim that he has OCD, though I’d be interested in expert reference that it would account not only for his incessant posting, but for his inability to respond to others when they try to communicate with him.

Darth Sarcasm: I just don't think that skepticism is a healthy approach for maintaining a civil discourse.
Luigi Novi: Choosing not to conclude one way or the other is not civil? How so?

Darth Sarcasm: Should I then be skeptical of such an individual's claim to a physical disability? I mean, he's given me no evidence (aside from the placard) that he may have any physical disability.
Luigi Novi: The placard is evidence.

Darth Sarcasm: Should I expect this person to provide me with documentation from a doctor to prove his assertion?
Luigi Novi: I never said AnonyMat had to provide me with anything. A notation that we don’t have evidence that would allow us to conclude one way or the other is not the same thing as a demand for it.

Darth Sarcasm: And how is this kind of behavior conducive to maintaining a community designed for "good cheer"?
Luigi Novi: Because the statement that he may or may not have been telling the truth is a dispassionate statement of fact that is neither conducive nor prohibitive one way or the other of “good cheer.”

Darth Sarcasm: Now, which action is going to be more conducive to good cheer if you were an employee seeing this... kindly taking the item when you see the customer setting it down next to the apples and perhaps saying, "Here... let me reshelve that so someone else can find it". Or hostilely and publicly confronting them with, "What's the matter with you? Don't you know there's a place for this?" And what if you're a customer seeing this? Do you alert an employee to the misshelved item... or take the item and tell the customer, "Here... I'll give it to that employee over there to reshelve"? Or do you hostilely and publicly confront them with, "What's the matter with you? Don't you know there's a place for this?"
Luigi Novi: How about if the customer not leave it in Produce in the first place? Wouldn’t that be conducive to good cheer? Or listening to people when they try to tell you to stop?

Darth Sarcasm: Add to your analogy... NEXT DAY: You're told that the customer in question claimed to a third party that he suffers from OCD or some other disorder.
Luigi Novi: I would question the claim vis a vis its sources, and if true, if it accounts for all of his behavior.

Now our "friend" is making meaningless posts & subjects as "Gary"

Maybe he could have OCD and be intentionally disruptive separately from that.

Precisely the question that came to mind when the OCD thing came up.

If he has OCD, can we put him incharge of the board for Monk. (ducks!)

Precisely the question that came to mind when the OCD thing came up. Luigi

It may be the question that came to mind, but it is not the position you argued. "As for all this about OCD, I would not take anything he says at face value" is not "precisely" the same thing as "Maybe he could have OCD and be intentionally disruptive separately from that."

And while it's true that nothing in your early posts is incompatible with agreeing with Nove's position, a more natural reading, and one that appears to be supported by your later responses is that you believe his disruptions to be intentional because you do not believe he suffers from OCD.

I have not drawn any such conclusion.

You may say that, Luigi, but doesn't it seem obvious that the impression you've made upon some of us is that you have drawn such a conclusion?

I have not drawn any such conclusion.

I did not claim you did. In fact, I said that your early posts were compatible with Nove's statement.

And while it's true that nothing in your early posts is incompatible with agreeing with Nove's position, a more natural reading, and one that appears to be supported by your later responses is that you believe his disruptions to be intentional because you do not believe he suffers from OCD. Me

I cannot account for the appearance or obviousness of this to you. I thought I worded it, to the best of my ability, to convey that one should not necessarily draw either conclusion; he might have OCD, or he might not.

In my first post regarding AnonyMatt on this board I wrote:

Thus I believe it is not unfair to be cautious with regards to assertions he makes on another board regarding having OCD, which as far as I know (and I could be wrong here) does not cause one to use racial epithets, nor prevent one from responding to admonitions to others. Even if we assume that OCD causes him to compulsively post, and even if we allow for the possibility that OCD is responsible for the racial epithets, in what way would OCD stop him from responding to those admonitions, "Sorry, guys, I can't help myself"? This does not constitute taking anything at “face value.” It is the reasoning with which I view him and his behavior skeptically—and until further information comes to light—provisionally.

Me, I simply meant that we should take any statements on his part with a grain of salt.

In my second post, I wrote:

How so? I cannot reason that someone who posts racial epithets anonymously and refuses to cease his disruptive behavior may not necessarily be honest, and that his statements about having OCD on other sites should be taken with a grain of salt? That is the matter on which I mentioned reasoning to Benn.

If he’s being truthful.

In my third post:

My position remains the same: AnonyMat may have been telling the truth when he claimed to OCD, or he may not have. When it concerns material made by anonymous posters on Internet message boards, I would prefer not to discount either possibility.

I thought (perhaps incorrectly it now seems) that this manner of wording made it clear that I was arguing that AnonyMatt’s assertions may or may not be true. Darth’s understanding of the word “skepticism” was obviously one reason from which this interpretation stemmed, but what about the word “provisional”? Or “cautious”? Or “if”? Or “may or may not”? Now I’m not sure which posts you consider my early ones and which you consider my later ones, but where does it “appear” that I had drawn a conclusion that he does not have OCD? Or that I believe his disruptions to be intentional because I do not believe he suffers from OCD?

Luigi: My "adversarial" phase was sometime back in 1999. It was more a matter of scale than actual rule violations.

Well, AnonyMatt/Mike/The Authentic Fan/etc. is back. He's flooding the Enterprise board with new threads. You read it here, first.

I should add that he's using the name "Mike" this time and has only created four new threads at this point. Some are variations of threads he's started before.

The threads posted so far aren't in violation of any of NitCentral's rules so it's up to Richie to deal with them as he sees fit.

Actually, Benn, I read it under Miscellaneous Emergencies first.

So? Did I mention your name in my posts?

Well, you said, "You" read it here first, and I was like, "No, I didn't! How does he know where I'm reading it? Stop spying on me!!!"

I should have known that phrase was gonna bite me in the ass. At the time, I was the only person to post about AnonyMatt's return. I was certainly the first. Not that anyone else noticed. Sometimes, I wonder why I bother posting anything here.

The time has come to BAN this idiotic "Anonymous" from NY (or where ever he's from) who daily spams our website with meaningless messages & pointless links that no doubt contain Spyware viruses.

He's plagued STTMP & "Fair Haven" and God knows where else.

Frankly speaking, I'm sick and tired of seeing it here.

I think the moderators are sick and tired of this rubbish too & I'm certain they have better things to do besides erase spam from Nitcentral.

Well, if the person uses a singular IP address, it shouldn't be too hard to block. If not, I'm not sure it'd be possible.

They're not using a single IP address. The Chief has blocked at least some of them. However, as he thinks it's a Spambot, it will only be a temporary solution.
I've started a second thread on the ST:TMP board. I'm hoping it will get annoyed and go away if it can't add posts where it has been doing it. Fingers crossed.

John-Boy is getting out of control.

He recently called Benn a "crybaby" on the "Icarus Factor" board.

Repetitive insults & flagrant disregard for Nitcentral rules justifies banning

Tell it to the Chief.

Yes, the Chief can block him, the Mods can't. The posts have been moved to the Garbage Dump.
On a positive note, closing the original thread and opening a part 2 seems to have foiled the Spambot, at least temporarily.

John Lang, can I speak to you via email? Is there an address I can email you at? Thanks.

John-Boy, calling other people names does not constitute a differing opinion.
As far as I know, none of the Mods, not even the Roving Mods goes through all the new posts every day. If there's a problem, someone may need to let us know. We can't fix what we don't know about.

SO WHATS GOING ON? NOW I CAN'T POST ANYTHING WITHOUT YOU DELETING IT? THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT!!!

No, it's that you seem to have difficulty saying anything without resorting to name calling.

And why can't the Mods get through all the new posts in one day? You can look at all the new posts for the last day or even the last week with one little click. I don't see how it would be so hard to keep up with what is going on around here. You don't seem to have any trouble finding my posts.

Hey, give alittle, get alittle.

Not every Mod has an unlimited amount of time to spend at NitCentral. That includes me. I do check the topics that I am the specific moderator for nearly every day, something like 99 out of 100. If anyone posts something on one of those boards, I'll see it within a day. If someone brings to my attention a problem on another board, I'll usually keep an eye on it for a time until I think the situation has resolved.
The Roving Mods were not created to monitor every post that's made here. They were created to act as backups to the topic mods, some of whom aren't here every day, so that posts that are 'ad hominem' aren't left up for a long period of time, possibly starting a flame war, causing ill feelings or other antagonistic behavior.

RE Luigi: I regret I cannot display my e-mail address here at Nitcentral. Too many people would take advantage of my generosity and exploit it by sending me viruses, spam, and other unwanted material..

I know because it happened before

Email me at nightscreamnovi1972@yahoo.com, or contact me via AOL Intant Messenger. I'm nightscreamnovi.

Done.

Butch, if the full time Mods can't do their jobs, and have to count on "Roving" Mods, then maybe they shouldn't be Mods!

I know that if I couldn't do my job, the company that I work for would fire me.

Oh and I like how Luigi and John A Lang are posting back and forth, pretending to be two differant people when I know they are one and the same.

No, John-Boy, they are two different people.

Wow, I've been lurking about here ever since I got online in 1999 and that's the first time I've ever seen that charge leveled. Anyone who reads here can tell they are two different people.

Goodnight, John-Boy.

Yea keep telling yourself that Brian A

Let's see here...

1. In terms of posting style and personal beliefs, the two guys are very different. Extremely different.

2. The IP numbers are different.

3. Even if they are the same, such a person would be resorting to the biggest con in the history of the world. Why would Luigi have to ask for John's e-mail address?

Not to mention one of the most pointless cons in the history of the world.

MikeC
1-No they are not, they are very much the same. If you can't see that, you are either lieing to yourself, or you are in on it.

2-Wheres your proof on the IP numbers?

3-"Luigi" is asking for "Johns" e-mail to carry on the con! duh! As tight as these two are, and as many times as "Luigi" comes to "Johns" defense, you can't tell me he didn't already have his e-mail before yesterday!

I was born in the dark but it wasn't last night.

JoshM- most of the auguements on this site are pointless, and when you get down to it, nitpicking old TV shows and movies is pointless, but we all do it anyways. So whats your point?

I can assure you,John-Boy...Luigi and I ARE NOT the same person.

1. Let's see here...John typically posts short one or two sentence posts, frequently just an observation, an opinion, or a joke. Luigi almost never posts jokes and writes long essay-like posts that you have referred to as "multi-colored unpacking." John is a conservative, Luigi not so much. The only proof that you seem to have is that Luigi has defended John on several occasions from criticism. The fact that he has defended several other posters (including myself, ScottN, and others) does not mean that he is them as well.

2. My proof on the IP numbers is if you log in to Administration, it lists the IP numbers for each poster. I realize that you can't get into this section, so I'm not sure how to prove it to you.

3. Why would Luigi know John's e-mail address? I've talked with Luigi probably a lot more than John and I didn't know his e-mail address until he just posted it.

4. Well, there's pointless and then there's POINTLESS. Posting nits about old TV shows may be pointless, but there's some sort of reason behind it--communicating information, discussing with friends, etcetera. Posting as someone named "Luigi Novi" and someone named "John A. Lang" and writing in very different posting styles from two different computers has no express purpose whatsoever that I can tell. Your mileage may vary.