• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

The reason for so many trolls?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Martin318is said:
They completely ignore any valid points in the post that was made in much the same manner that BroDeal has done above. (sorry BroDeal but its an obvious comparison)

There is a reason I wrote that. Our good friend Andy just spent a bunch of time posting a fallacious allegation about Armstrong being the reason Lemond, who must of course be bitter and jealous, is speaking out about doping. He was shown articles disproving this, but rejected any evidence that did not square with his beliefs. He then posts what is effectively a "woe is me" post decrying the senior members for not accepting his dishonest arguments.

I really do not have a lot of sympathy for that sort of whinging, and I do not think much time should be spent responding to an obvious shift and continuation of his post about Lemond. Since he was not making progress convincing people of his bogus points about Lemond, he then shifted the debate to lamenting about how the big bad forum members are persecuting him and not able to appreciate his logic. A short quip displaying just what I think of him and his "points" is all I feel his post deserved.
 
Jul 27, 2010
620
0
0
Visit site
Hugh Januss said:
First of all your list of "facts" is pathetic, no one has ever advanced either the idea that Lance invented cancer or the idea that he wasn't a very good classics/single day type pro in any sort of serious way.

I note that you have chosen to place your "experience" inside quotes, that is where it belongs as I would be willing to bet it is mostly real only in your mind.

Finally, isn't "carefully choosing words to annoy" the definition of troll?

Actually Hugh, the word "facts" being in quotations was the clue to it's ironic use.....and actually MW has posted a very real assertion about LA's lack of ability without dope on another thread and talked about his own considerable "experience"....see the quotation marks again....which is why my response was directed at him.

It really helps if you read the thread first before posting....it saves me having to repeat myself....and others having the irritation of having to ignore your posts so as to try and keep the debate moving coherently.

And my experience....ok....you can have your opinion if that makes you feel better....and I will have mine. And judging by the information you use to make "bets"....I sincerely hope they don't let you have a credit card.

And Martin....this forum would be a very empty place indeed (both literally and figuratively) if every new user was dissuaded or stopped from adding their opinion to any debate that might have appeared elsewhere in the forum. But i imagine there are quite a few users here who would prefer that there were less of us pesky kids taking up precious time with our naive and "dumb" opinions!

As I have said before....someone may not like what I say....fine, say so....if they have heard it all before....fine, ignore it....but if their first and only response is "bash the troll"....then, if i may borrow a word....they are dumb
 
Mar 10, 2009
504
0
0
Visit site
Trolls and their many sock puppets, aren't the kind who want to debate. The want vitriol, cheap shots, and absurd statements.

If they had debate skills, it would be evident. Instead, it's circular reasoning, straw man arguments, ad-hominem attacks, etc.

You can school them by putting them on "ignore". Don't respond to them. Also, I suggest disabling the PM function so they can't further engage you off-forum.
 
straydog said:
And Martin....this forum would be a very empty place indeed (both literally and figuratively) if every new user was dissuaded or stopped from adding their opinion to any debate that might have appeared elsewhere in the forum. But i imagine there are quite a few users here who would prefer that there were less of us pesky kids taking up precious time with our naive and "dumb" opinions!

You have not come here as a "new user" to listen and learn and then express an opinion. You have come here with an agenda firmly in place (for whatever reason) of railing against what has become the majority opinion of this forum. By your own admission you choose your words to annoy those who may hold that opinion, and then when you are called on it you go into this "innocent me being attacked by all these stupid bad people" act.
If it walks like a troll and talks like a troll........
 
BroDeal said:
There is a reason I wrote that. Our good friend Andy just spent a bunch of time posting a fallacious allegation about Armstrong being the reason Lemond, who must of course be bitter and jealous, is speaking out about doping. He was shown articles disproving this, but rejected any evidence that did not square with his beliefs. He then posts what is effectively a "woe is me" post decrying the senior members for not accepting his dishonest arguments.

I really do not have a lot of sympathy for that sort of whinging, and I do not think much time should be spent responding to an obvious shift and continuation of his post about Lemond. Since he was not making progress convincing people of his bogus points about Lemond, he then shifted the debate to lamenting about how the big bad forum members are persecuting him and not able to appreciate his logic. A short quip displaying just what I think of him and his "points" is all I feel his post deserved.


Go away, read the actual posts I made, then come back and list my dishonest arguments.
Also you missed the main point of my posts, do you realise that?
Its hardly surprising, you were so busy deciding I was wrong to actually engage in a debate.

You are so dim, you must confuse yourself.

Oh congratulations on the short quip by the way, your'e a real scholar.
 
andy1234 said:
Go away, read the actual posts I made, then come back and list my dishonest arguments.
Also you missed the main point of my posts, do you realise that?
Its hardly surprising, you were so busy deciding I was wrong to actually engage in a debate.

You are so dim, you must confuse yourself.

Oh congratulations on the short quip by the way, your'e a real scholar.

I read your posts and was not impressed. I am even less impressed with your whining.

I don't think there was a main point to your LeMond posts other than a clear demonstration of either naivete or stupidity--it is hard to decide which.
 
BroDeal said:
I read your posts and was not impressed. I am even less impressed with your whining.

I don't think there was a main point to your LeMond posts other than a clear demonstration of either naivete or stupidity--it is hard to decide which.

Your not impressed by my whining, oh s**t, I really must try harder.

Go on admit it, you didnt really read my posts. Its OK, a little embarassing for you, but OK.

If you decide to actually read the post, come back to me and I will break it down for you like a Jack and Jill book.

Edit - Jeez, Ive just looked at your post count. Not to mention your posts on other sites. You must live on the internet, now I can see how you've gained your experience I bow down to you.
 
andy1234 said:
Your not impressed by my whining, oh s**t, I really must try harder.

Go on admit it, you didnt really read my posts. Its OK, a little embarassing for you, but OK.

If you decide to actually read the post, come back to me and I will break it down for you like a Jack and Jill book.

This is not only ironic it is rather hilarious. It goes to show just how dishonest your original post in this thread really was. After moaning about how you are being attacked by senior members who won't give in to your clueless assertions and trying to spin it into a larger issue out of concern for the forum, you then turn around and engage in the very same behavior you b!tch about.

Well done. It is always nice when a mask of deception cracks and exposes the sordid truth beneath.
 
BroDeal said:
This is not only ironic it is rather hilarious. It goes to show just how dishonest your original post in this thread really was. After moaning about how you are being attacked by senior members who won't give in to your clueless assertions and trying to spin it into a larger issue out of concern for the forum, you then turn around and engage in the very same behavior you b!tch about.

Well done. It is always nice when a mask of deception cracks and exposes the sordid truth beneath.

Hands up, thats what I did. I just gave up trying to rationalise with someone who refuses to engage in adult conversation and got down to their level.
It's what you do with kids.

Tell you what, hit the ignore button for me and I will do the same for you.
Im sure you will find another argument out there in no time.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
Visit site
straydog said:
And Martin....this forum would be a very empty place indeed (both literally and figuratively) if every new user was dissuaded or stopped from adding their opinion to any debate that might have appeared elsewhere in the forum. But i imagine there are quite a few users here who would prefer that there were less of us pesky kids taking up precious time with our naive and "dumb" opinions!...

Hmmm... I am noting a clear tendency in you to try to twist people's comments in order to try and score points. Be careful with that...

At NO time have I indicated that the opinions of new users have any lesser value of those of long term members. What I VERY clearly said was that it is a very silly (yes dumb) thing to do, to walk into a forum where there are already half a million posts on a topic and, instead of contributing to an existing conversation, (or recognising that what you think has already been discussed many times before and doesnt need a new thread) effectively shout out loud by creating a new thread on the same topic with a generic title that attacks a large % of the membership. (it doesnt matter what topic it is - if its one of the big ones here you will be annoying somebody bu doing that)

I don't think anybody here in this conversation or in this forum in general is saying that the opinions of new users have no value. What they are saying it that it would be nice if people didn't introduce themselves to the world with yet another trolling thread. See this for an example of what we have to deal with:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=301548#post301548

Are you seriously trying to tell me that (whether the detail is correct or not) this user has introduced themselves to the forum in a remotely sensible way? From this point on, roughly 90% of people that read that will think 'TROLL' - even those that actually agree with him/her. (and I am ignoring the username here)
 
Hugh Januss said:
You have not come here as a "new user" to listen and learn and then express an opinion. You have come here with an agenda firmly in place (for whatever reason) of railing against what has become the majority opinion of this forum. By your own admission you choose your words to annoy those who may hold that opinion, and then when you are called on it you go into this "innocent me being attacked by all these stupid bad people" act.
If it walks like a troll and talks like a troll........

Many of the topics I have read about in the clinic shows that it is highly polarized, but what is wrong with 'railing against what has become the majority opinion of this forum'? Just because an opinion is held by the majority does not mean that it is correct. An opinion is an opinion, not a fact and therefore neither right nor wrong. I brought up the point using the majority opinion, not because I believe it to be wrong as I have not yet formed my opinion and am keeping an open mind, but because you mentioned the majority opinion in your post.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
Visit site
on3m@n@rmy said:
troll... makes sense - thanks

I agree on the retest of LA samples... if only HE'd agree.

I am leaving this post in place for now because in a case of unintended (or was it intended) irony the person asking what a troll is has effectively enacted some quality trolling.

Please - nobody answer this retorical question: Just what has discussion of LA's urine samples got to do with the current discussion in this thread about dealing with trolls on this forum? - nothing, yet it has the potential to derail this conversation and create a flood of two sided arguements on the new topic.
 
Marva32 said:
Many of the topics I have read about in the clinic shows that it is highly polarized, but what is wrong with 'railing against what has become the majority opinion of this forum'? Just because an opinion is held by the majority does not mean that it is correct. An opinion is an opinion, not a fact and therefore neither right nor wrong. I brought up the point using the majority opinion, not because I believe it to be wrong as I have not yet formed my opinion and am keeping an open mind, but because you mentioned the majority opinion in your post.

What I was trying to say was that when you choose to do that on your first post then you are kind of coming in all guns a'blazing, and are setting yourself up to be responded to in kind. When you then b!tch and moan about the "haters" attacking you, then you are either ignorant of how social systems work or getting the response you were hoping for.
 
Martin318is said:
I am leaving this post in place for now because in a case of unintended (or was it intended) irony the person asking what a troll is has effectively enacted some quality trolling.

Please - nobody answer this retorical question: Just what has discussion of LA's urine samples got to do with the current discussion in this thread about dealing with trolls on this forum? - nothing, yet it has the potential to derail this conversation and create a flood of two sided arguements on the new topic.

Actually I think he was only responding to something in my signature line.
It's OK, nothing to see here, move along everyone.:p
 
Hugh Januss said:
What I was trying to say was that when you choose to do that on your first post then you are kind of coming in all guns a'blazing, and are setting yourself up to be responded to in kind. When you then b!tch and moan about the "haters" attacking you, then you are either ignorant of how social systems work or getting the response you were hoping for.

I'm interested, do you include me in the "all guns blazing" and "moan about the haters" category?

As the OP on this, I am (possibly wrongly) assuming that you are referring to me?

If not, no worries, If so, why?
 
Jul 27, 2010
620
0
0
Visit site
Martin318is said:
Hmmm... I am noting a clear tendency in you to try to twist people's comments in order to try and score points. Be careful with that...

At NO time have I indicated that the opinions of new users have any lesser value of those of long term members. What I VERY clearly said was that it is a very silly (yes dumb) thing to do, to walk into a forum where there are already half a million posts on a topic and, instead of contributing to an existing conversation, (or recognising that what you think has already been discussed many times before and doesnt need a new thread) effectively shout out loud by creating a new thread on the same topic with a generic title that attacks a large % of the membership. (it doesnt matter what topic it is - if its one of the big ones here you will be annoying somebody bu doing that)

I don't think anybody here in this conversation or in this forum in general is saying that the opinions of new users have no value. What they are saying it that it would be nice if people didn't introduce themselves to the world with yet another trolling thread. See this for an example of what we have to deal with:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=301548#post301548

Are you seriously trying to tell me that (whether the detail is correct or not) this user has introduced themselves to the forum in a remotely sensible way? From this point on, roughly 90% of people that read that will think 'TROLL' - even those that actually agree with him/her. (and I am ignoring the username here)

I can't seem to open the link you have posted, so apologies if I can't respond to it

I have to be careful here....don't want to be seen to be twisting anything....and why exactly do i have to be careful?

ok...the title of my orignal thread attacked a large percentage of the users here?....I seem to remember I referred to myself as a fanboy...no one else....it was a reasoned defence of those who might be a fanboy....and the thrust of my arguement in it which referred to trolling....was that I said I would be amused by the lengths some people would go to accuse me of that crime for voicing my unpopular opinion....how dumb of me to try and provoke some sensible debate on a topic, and highlight the insensible by giving some people enough rope to hang themselves. I didn't just give them the rope...I noosed it for them too....slung it over the beam....put the chair in place...and said "call me a troll if you don't like my opinion....say i work for LA....am part of his grand conspiracy....and you have just absented yourself from this debate"....Those who chose to step up and reduce the arguement as such and only contribute with those comments were, in my humble opinion, the dumb ones. It was their choice. They condemned themselves. Not me. The thread came with a very clear health warning....

And since when do i have to contribute to an exisiting thread and not shout my opinion if I feel strongly about it and I want to? If someone is tired of that opinion....don't read it and don't respond to it. That is the beauty of freedom of speech. You can choose not to speak too.

One quick last question Martin....can I ignore Moderators on this site?

And please, it is a serious question....I am not trying to provoke you.

And sorry I can't open the thread you posted again....so I can't see what you meant...but what exactly constitutes a "trolling" thread?....Are there criteria?....Is there an FAQ sheet I could read?....or is it entirely subjective?

And Hugh...I didn't b*tch and moan about being attacked....as I very clearly stated....I was amused
 
Jul 27, 2010
620
0
0
Visit site
Ferminal said:
I'm not sure what you're debating?

Your first post was designed to incite a strong reaction, and it's exactly what you got.


No.... my first post expected a strong reaction....it was designed to articulate something I felt strongly about....and perhaps discuss that issue without it just decending into name calling....

Hey and i admit that when it did descend....I may have experienced a slight frustration that led me to get drawn into those murky waters a bit deeper that i would have hoped to....and for that I take it on the chin.
 
straydog said:
No.... my first post expected a strong reaction....it was designed to articulate something I felt strongly about....and perhaps discuss that issue without it just decending into name calling....

Hey and i admit that when it did descend....I may have experienced a slight frustration that led me to get drawn into those murky waters a bit deeper that i would have hoped to....and for that I take it on the chin.

If that was the case then you wouldn't have included the following lines...

straydog said:
Let me start this post by saying that I am really looking forward to see what amusing and deluded lengths the anti Armstrong brigade will go to paint me as either:

1. A "troll" - like it actually hurts someones feelings who doesn't depend on their reputation in an internet forum for their self esteem.

2. In the employ of Lxxxstrong/ Nxke/ the Taleban

3. Lance Armstrong himself

Ok....so here goes:

I have intermittently read posts in this forum for about a year or so, and frankly have never been even slightly inclined to post or get into any kind of debate with the self styled moral arbiters or doping experts who seem to have an extraordinary amount of free time on their hands. But I have to admit that some of the complete nonsense spouted has gotten the better of me.

Now once you have had a little lie down and recovered from the shock I will continue...

But the haters say "without dope he was just average"....

The thing I hate is cycling fans and some "commentators" seemingly trying to tear the sport apart by having meaningless imflammtory debates on the ethics of the past.

If you wanted a reasonable debate (rather than a reaction) you shouldn't have painted yourself as the "villain" in your very first post. It was a personal debate from the start.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
Visit site
straydog said:

Hi Straydog,
I really dont understand why you are seeming to tak so mcuh personal offense at the comments I have made. Please do me a personal favour and read teh following without looking for hidden barbs etc, there are none in there (that I intentionally put there anyway.) I have written in point form becaise it is 2:30am and I am tired... as can be seen in the poor typing... I hve been online here on and off since 9am when I started my real job in the office...

Answering your comments in the rough order tehy were presented:

1) Twsiting people's words to misrepresent them is a classic tactic of a troll, therefore if you are worried about appearing to be one, I was suggesting that you be careful. Thats all. :D

2. I have no idea what you are talking about about YOUR thread. I was writing in general referring to the forum and the topic of THIS thread which is the reasons for all the trolls (and as I thought I had made clear on 3 ocassions, the reasons the innocent get tagged as trolls). I responded to the topic, not you.
With the exception of your posts here in this thread, I havent intentionally sought out a post of yours to read (that isnt intended to insult, I am just saying that these days I dont have teh time to get to every part of the forum - which is why we are asking for more volunteer moderators). I now know which thread you mean but I still havent read it in relation to this thread. You are arguing with yourself on this point. I have zero problem with your posting style to date.

3. You continue to refer back to my usage of the word 'dumb'. This strikes me as you being rather agressive and trying to score points on me. In light of point 2, fair enough but If I was worried about something that mundane do you think I would be willing to work here s an unpaid moderator? - Dont answer, its fairly obvious. I get hatemail daily from members old and new. Its part of the job description.

4. It has been made very clear to you that there are a massive collectino of overlapping threads representing every faction in the current arguements. Yes, of COURSE there are going to be gaps in this information. However, the point that was made (as opposed to what you responded to) was that if someone really feels they are so special that they need to raise a new thread to publish opinion or information that has already been uttered several times that day, go for it - just dont expect it to stay in place because it will either get merged into a larger existing thread or locked if its balatantly trolling.

5. I have just checked and the thread that I linked to has since been deleted - see point 4. The highlights I was trying to show you were:
* Username - TROLLS
* Topic - A LeMond hate fest (cant remember exact wording but it was blatant)
* Content - several paragraphs of knowingly factually incorrect summaries of events posing as a valid listing of legal facts with the clear purpose of creating a major argument on the forum (which it did - it ran to several pages of troll abuse).
Note that I dont say the purpose was to discuss LeMond in any way at all. How do I know? the user is a single post member who has disappeared within 5mins of posting that thread. they signed up, wrote it, and left in that time.


6. I believe it has been said that freedom of speech is the last refuge of the forum troll (If it hasnt been said, then I officially claim that quote now). When you signed up you will have probably well lets face it - I know I did - completely ignored several guidelines regarding forum behaviour. One that I think needs to be added to that list is that whilst in some countries freedom of speech is paramount, in others it is less so and either way, you are free to say what you like, it doesn't mean that a forum must be forced to host it. CAse in point is a thread earlier today asking which prison bunk Lance would get and talking about who would be the 'daddy' needless to say this type of discussion completely oversteps decency and so we chose not to host it.

7. I have no idea if you can put moderators on ignore. I would question what motivation someone would have to do so as by definition a moderator needs to be able to make announcements and deal with arguments in public conversations. To ignore a moderator implies you must have a serious grievance with that individual - in which casse I invite you to report it to the moderators (just click the button on the post and everyone will get it) If the grievance is valid I assure you that it will be dealt with. It would not be the first time that a moderator has moderated another moderator - on this or any other forum. We DO discuss each others actions.

8 There were links posted higher up discussing teh definitions of trolling. I dont know whether the CN FAQ is written fully yet so please look there in the interim.


Anyway, All I am trying to say i that you appear to be under siege a bit from some members with opposing viewpoints and it appears to me that you have chosen to belive that I am one of these people. I'm not.

I do have views on some subjects, and have made a minor collection of posts about them (including launching one thread a while back - well before becoming a mod - that I reget as I look back in it and realise I looked like I was trolling). The thing I DON'T do is act on posts by users based upon personal bias. There is only one situation where I act differently, and that is if one specific user posts, I suspend him. This has nothing to do with the beliefs he holds, it is because he has broken forum rules over 100 times in the last year.

I hope you ahve a great time on this site - we have 14,000+ signups and the majority of these are reularly active. Those members have a rainbow of opinions taht do lead to very interesting discussions - in the appropriate threads.

regards,
Martin