BBO Discussion Forums: personal attacks on BBO forums - BBO Discussion Forums

hrothgar, on 2013-July-30, 13:10, said:

True, it was the target of the insult who made the claim, and someone else agreed; I forgot the details. He's apparently willing to live with the insults, perhaps because it gives him license to retaliate in kind. But that doesn't mean that we have to allow it -- these are public forums, we don't want private little flamewars, even if the participants aren't bothered.

glen, on 2013-July-30, 13:14, said:

Unless someone reports them, we often don't know they're happening.

Another problem we run into is that by the time we see the report, the attack has been replied to several times, with the attack quoted. It's a PITA editing all of them, and it's hard to see the point since most of the people who would ever have seen the message already have been inflicted. Who are we protecting, one or two people who might stumble upon them when searching archived posts?

barmar, on 2013-July-30, 13:27, said:

Besides the active forum members, we also see guests read these forums, often once every few days, some whom might even join the forum for discussions. If they see an expert say, in reply to "an intermediate is challenging the logic behind your favourite convention", that "It's much more akin to mocking the village idiot" they quite rightly think this is place where bullying is permitted. These potential members might not have read the hundreds of threads that got the expert frustrated enough to say this.

Then I simply confess that I haven't really figured out how to edit them effectively. If there's a tangent springing from the insult, what do I do to clean it up without resulting in nonsense (like when they dub over the swear words in R movies so they can play on broadcast TV).

glen, on 2013-July-30, 13:42, said:

Let use "The Muiderberg Hoax" as an example...

Even in this (relatively late) thread people initially treated 32519's posting respectfully.
They politely pointed out where he was wrong and provided supporting evidence.

The personal attacks didn't start in earnest until 32519

1. Rejected statements from all of the Dutch and Belgian players regarding how a Dutch Convention is played
2. Tried to justify his opinions with a badly flawed simulation

Had some random newbie to the forums stumbled into this thread, they would have seen a thread that started quite civilly, but eventually degenerated.

So be it...

barmar, on 2013-July-30, 14:00, said:

In rare cases you will need to delete a whole set of postings to stop the infection from spreading. However people still want to get their points in, so will usually repost without the personal attacks.

Let's look at pigs:

Quote

edit this out (send note to poster noting old saying was wallow, not wrestle).

Next, edit out of the reply the quote, but the reply can stay:

Quote

For the next post delete it, even with fun image of shark wrestling:

Quote

and delete this:

Quote

and delete this:

Quote

When you now read the thread you will see it actually reads nicely because all the bridge postings were kept!

Estimated edit/delete time less than 5 minutes, and I think you might have to do this about once every four months.

Even if he brings it on himself, I would like to believe that we're mature enough not to rise to the bait and start calling people names. I'm reminded of the old Saturday Night Live "Point-Counterpoint" bits, where Dan Aykroyd would end up retorting with "Jane, you ignorant slut!" -- that was satire, not a recommendation for online discussions.

If he clearly doesn't understand, there's no law requiring you to reply to point it out. You can just decide that it's hopeless and give up. But there does seem to be something about online discussions that makes it hard to give in like this.

hrothgar, on 2013-July-30, 14:06, said:

When editing is done, then when guests stumble into the thread, they would see a thread that started quite civilly, and then had some strong bridge arguments that nailed a whole bunch of points

hrothgar, on 2013-July-30, 13:10, said:

The root cause of you calling someone the village idiot is you.

The "It's not my fault, I'm a victim!" defense, a.k.a. "But Mommy, he started it!", only works if you're under age 12.

GreenMan, on 2013-July-30, 16:05, said:

If this were an isolated event, I might agree.
However, what's the root cause if significant numbers of people in multiple threads all label one individual as the village idiot (or make equivalent comments)

glen, on 2013-July-30, 13:14, said:

My dog has misplayed a number of hands on BBO recently and has come up with some idiotic ideas on bidding theory. I caught him smoking some noxious chemical substances recently. This probably explains it. By the way, for someone who has an acid tongue at times you are certainly taking the high moral ground. Some of us find this amusing.

I still claim that Richard did not call anyone a "village idiot. - he used an analogy" Only those who cannot properly comprehend the written English language can draw a conclusion that that comment is a direct personal insult.. The lack of comprehension is their problem, not that of others.

glen, on 2013-July-28, 17:25, said:

Attacks on individuals are distasteful. Most organisations, committees, and groups are fair game. And the demolition of faulty arguments is part of reasoned debate.

the hog, on 2013-July-30, 18:26, said:

Can't you stop your dozy mutt posting on your BBO a/c?

nige1, on 2013-July-30, 18:59, said:

No, the damn dog hacked my password.

See, on the Internet, sometimes we can tell you're a dog.

GreenMan, on 2013-July-30, 20:32, said:

But he is not a dog, he is an extra large PIG

inquiry, on 2013-July-30, 22:12, said:

Ah, I get it now.

Quite a lot has been said here about me but I will engage someone in a debate until they convince me that they have a better way of doing things. Before you say that I am inconvincible, just recently I gave the thumbs up to fromageGB for a weak 2 continuation sequence which I thought was simple, effective and required very little memory load. Then Vampyr also gave a suggested continuation sequence after a strong 2♣ opening. Again it’s simple and doesn’t require much memory load. I have incorporated both into my own agreements.

On the downside we have the Puppet Stayman sequence as an example. Unless you come up with something more convincing, Puppet Stayman is a loser.
What do I gain with PS?
1. I can include 5-card majors in my 1NT bid if it falls in the range
What do I lose with PS?
1. An immediate 2/1 GF auction (although this won’t be a problem because you will get to game anyway, but with the GF auction initiated, your mindset changes towards the bidding while looking for the best spot to play)
2. The ability to raise immediately to level 4 with a weak hand but long in trumps
3. Splinter bids
4. Bergen raises
5. Fit jumps
6. Jacoby 2NT
7. Jacoby 3NT
And an even bigger downside, additional memory load to uncover a possible 5-3 or 4-4 fit in the major.

Another downside not off the table yet we have 2NT for 5-5 in the minors, 5-10 HCP.
What do I gain? The entire 1 and 2 levels have been taken away from the opponents.
Downsides? I gave a whole list in the thread with a request that all who play the bid give me their reasons for doing so. Thus far not a single one has responded.

I don’t really care what you think about my posting style, but from the number of views and the number of replies to many of those threads, it should be pretty obvious to my most vehement opponents that they generate a lot of interest.

I haven’t finished debating some of those threads, most notably The Muiderberg Hoax. If you’re following them, you will soon see me back there.

32519, on 2013-July-30, 23:20, said:

And several other things mentioned by others and misunderstood/misconstrued/ignored by you in the thread. Anyway your post is making some category errors too but let's leave it at that since this is not a bridge thread.

Quote

Nicki Minaj has much more views than Hilary Hahn on Youtube (3.9M subscribers compared to 10k).

Quote

We already knew that.

32519, on 2013-July-30, 23:20, said:

What is debating?
What is a (good) debate? A debate is an organized clash of good ideas. Each side employs worthwhile evidence to promote their viewpoint and to rebut the "flawed" evidence advanced by the other side. Debating is a formal intellectual contest and there are endless ways it can be played.

Look at the words and phrases used in the above quote: "organised, good ideas, worthwhile evidence, formal intellectual contest."
You don't debate!