Should Simple be Suspended

Hi, all!After Simple's last reply to me (Message 187 of the Fossil sorting for simple thread), what were becoming serious doubts about whether Simple would ever turn the corner and begin discussing issues meaningfully now feel confirmed.Some members believed from outset that Simple was a troll, but my definition of a troll is one who's sole purpose is to frustrate and annoy, and while Simple is certainly doing that, he *does* seems sincerly interested in discussing the issues. I feel that his true problem is that he is poorly equipped both in terms of scientific knowledge and analytical thinking, and so I wanted to give him a chance to demonstrate even just the most modest improvement, or even just an awareness, perhaps, that his approach is inadequate. I engaged Simple in discussion and patiently explained the evidence behind current thinking over and over again. Several others made similar attempts.The result has been no change in Simple's behavior. If anything he's backslipping. Other moderators have already taken notice, he's already been suspended once, but before taking action this time I thought I would submit the question to the membership about what should be done. I invite comments from both sides of the debate. Relevant questions, and certainly not a complete list:

• Should we continue to engage Simple in the threads just as we already are?
• Would it be helpful if even fewer members engaged in dialogue with Simple?
• Would a different approach be helpful? Which one or ones?
• Would an Admin feature that could limit a member to n posts/day (easily done) be helpful?
• Are there any other board features that might prove helpful if they were made available?
• Would a mere casting out to the hinterlands (Free For All) be the recommended course?
• Is suspension the right course?

--PercyPS - Apologies to The Sound of Music

I am inclined to think that you are right about simple. He is actually trying. He even thinks he is making points. However, there is no evidence at all that he is capable of actually discussing anything.I don't like suspensions, so I am not going to go for that right now.I would suggest that simple be confined to the free for all or one single thread. Any deviation would be subject to suspension.The single thread should be very, very simple. It should be a chance for him/her to demonstrate that s/he can actually carry on a rational conversation. If that fails then restriction to the free for all before any actual suspension.

I'm not a huge fan of suspensions either. Simple is frustrating, scientifically ignorant, oblivious, and worst of all arrogant and belittling, but I don't think he/she has actually crossed the line into full-fledged troll - YET.The one thing that really pisses me off are people who enjoy belittling others. Simple appears to gain much satisfaction from that activity... probably an attempt to mask his/her scientific ineptitude, but annoying nonetheless.Basically, I feel discussing anything with simple is a complete waste of time and I don't think he/she has anything to offer or contribute to EvC. I just can't seem to help myself and that's why I've responded to simple once or twice.< s i g h >Right now, simple is more troll than serious poster.[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 02-10-2004]

I agree with Ned. Restriction to the Free For All until he can understand what is being asked of him. Personally, I won't hold my breath.If restriction isn't used, then I strongly suggest that members debating him hold him tightly to thread topics. He likes to switch topics in the middle of a debate and I think that everyone needs to keep this in tight check. I also suggest that when an unsupported assertion is made, opponents should simply repeat requests for evidence until it is supplied.We are all guilty of letting Simple get away with his debate tactics.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Here's a proposal:

1. Implement forum-by-forum privileges under the control of board administration. By default, privileges for all forums are on for every member.
   ​
2. Add a new forum, name to be decided. Unlike Free For All it would be moderated, but only to provide feedback, and not so much by administrators and moderators, but more by those participating in the discussions. Name ideas:
   ​
   Training Ground
   Minor Leagues
   Preseason
   ​
3. Restrict Simple to the new forum and Free For All. Of course, he would also retain access to Suggestions, Practice Makes Perfect, etc.

I *do* carefully consider all feedback, and it is much appreciated. I likely won't make any changes we decide upon till the weekend, so Simple will have at least a few more days of unrestricted access.--Percy[This message has been edited by Percy, 02-11-2004]

Kiddie Pool
Sandbox

Hi,
although I'm not an overly regular poster, I do follow most of the threads. It seems to me that restricting someone to the ffa forum does not help that person or those he interacts with too much (I see how participating in the ffa fora is everyone's choice but still).
How about restricting certain posters (especially those that seem very young or do not possess a coherent style of debate) to - say - two topics total (fora of their choice). This would be helpful as it seems to me that certain people tend to "spread themselves too thin". They would be watched by the moderators of the respective fora and encouraged to stay on topic and actually answer the rebuttals to their posts. Pending improvement of their debating skills over time, these restrictions could be lifted. If they cannot debate a single topic coherently, I would consider them trolls and deal with them accordingly...
my best regards
P.S. Playground would be my suggestion

If you do this, could you perhaps remove posts from these forums from the recent topic list?

Please keep the feedback and suggestions coming. To comment on just a couple things:

1. I like the idea of restricting a "debater in training" to just a thread or two. This still exposes the board to the danger of the thread equivalent of runaway subduction (meaning a very high post/minute rate), but everyone is different, and not all "debaters in training" would exhibit this behavior. And we need multiple tools in our toolbox.
   ​
2. There is another similar tool which could be implemented which could limit a "debater in training" to a certain wait period between posts (easy to do), or to a certain post rate (probably easy to do, but I'd have to check a couple things to make sure).
   ​
3. The idea of not listing the "training" threads with the other threads is a good one, but raises the question of where they would be listed. Wouldn't it be sufficient that they're listed with the training forum's name in the forum name column?

--Percy

1. Why not a label next to the persons name as it is now i.e. Member, reflecting their status? "In training", "novice", "member" (ok Mr. Hambre..no jokes here!), etc. would indicate to others the level of the person and would indicate how one should respond.
2. The different categories could then be subject to different constraints from limited numbers of forums, limited number of posts per day all the way up to unrestricted access.
3. Make it a system where it works in both directions. Posting behavior can lead either up or down the ladder.

LTD (learn to debate)
Primer
LTD Primer
Subway

---

Azure Moon
Free-Thinkers: Those who, abandoning the religious truths and moral dictates of the Christian Revelation, and accepting no dogmatic teaching on the ground of authority, base their beliefs on the unfettered findings of reason alone. Catholic Encyclopedia.

I like LTD Primerand Mammuthus's suggestion under members (including the possibitlity of moving both up and down).

I might have mentioned this once or twice in passing in other threads, but one of my long term plans (but hopefully this year) is to introduce a message rating system. The ratings members assign to messages would be roled up into a rating for each member. Sliding below a certain rating level would carry some automatic restrictions.There's a lot of issues here. For example, one disgruntled person could go around assigning a zero rating to every post from someone he's unhappy with (even posts that say, "See you when you get back", and so forth), so there would have to be some automated statistical analysis of the voting to detect and exclude anomalies like this. And it would have to be solid and reliable - we couldn't allow maintenance of member ratings to become an administrative headache.There should also be a horizon. Is it fair and does it make sense to include ratings from, say, over a year ago? As we've observed here, some people improve, and some people decline.--Percy

Could you set it up so that one person can't rate another more than, say, once every 24 hours?

I'd suggest a 'moving average'. Explanation if you want one. It gradually discounts old results.