I suggest this RGR/Ralph troll be banned

Post your ideas to improve the forums here

Moderators: Peak Moderation, Site Administrators

should it or shouldn't it be banned?

Yes
10
43%
No
6
26%
Don't know
4
17%
Don't care
2
9%
We should encourage similar posters
1
4%
 
Total votes: 23

User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14643
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

elsewhere, woodburner wrote:I just ignore Ralph. The collection of words in the posts seldom seem to make any sense.
I do ignore it and it's the preferred option. But others…sigh.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 8911
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

I find it pretty easy to ignore - It's impressive he had nothing better to do over Christmas than troll our little backwater of the 'net!
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14643
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

clv101 wrote:I find it pretty easy to ignore
Well done. Others don't.
clv101 wrote:It's impressive he had nothing better to do over Christmas than troll our little backwater of the 'net!
Yours being the final PS post of 2013 is 100 times more impressive than any one of RGR's, despite it not being in any way impressive.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
User avatar
Catweazle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:04 pm
Location: Petite Bourgeois, over the hills

Post by Catweazle »

My first instinct is that to ban people because they have different views is a terrible thing to do. RGR would have accused us of being a "Cult", expelling the "Unbelievers". However, it occurs to me that by leaving Ralph to post superficially plausible arguments that don't stand up to investigation the board is allowing a clever propangandist a platform.

The question is, do Ralphs arguments stand investigation or not ? Are we really viewing then objectively ? Or are we discounting them because of RGRs previous work ?

Surely, taking his posts apart in a logical manner would help to understand the real situation, sadly I'm not equipped to do it, but I look forward to some of the brighter members efforts.
woodburner
Posts: 4127
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:45 pm

Post by woodburner »

I suspect other peoples posts would be questionable if investigated enough.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14643
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

Catweazle wrote:Surely, taking his posts apart in a logical manner would help to understand the real situation, sadly I'm not equipped to do it, but I look forward to some of the brighter members efforts.
Some of them already have; I suspect they may be amongst the five (so far) yesses.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
woodburner
Posts: 4127
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:45 pm

Post by woodburner »

eh oop, what do ya know, a factoid.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
extractorfan
Posts: 988
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Ricky
Contact:

Post by extractorfan »

stevecook172001 wrote:My instinct is to never engage in the banning of dissent. Even if I think the dissent is stupid or, even, mischievous. I realize that there is a line in the sand for everything, even a lack of willingness to ban. but, I don't think the idiot Ralph has reached that yet.

One option could be, as I think UE has suggested, to limit the threads where he could post. I don't actually know about the logistics about that on here and whether it would be possible. Even then, though, I would be extremely reluctant.
I agree, don't ban anyone.

Infuriating though it is, other people probably read this forum and don't participate, people who view the world the same way, to ban people like that turns the discussion into a vague type of propaganda.

I enjoy watching the debate personally too, no matter how often I see the same old refutations, I don't know why.
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14643
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

extractorfan wrote:I enjoy watching the debate
Toad elevating moment.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
tpals
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:40 pm

Post by tpals »

Isn't Ralph's comparing PO to a religious belief a further indication that he is probably RGR?
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12683
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

One vote for "We should encourage similar posters"!! Could that be the bot/troll itself?
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11328
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

tpals wrote:Isn't Ralph's comparing PO to a religious belief a further indication that he is probably RGR?
Yes.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11328
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

I see no point in continuing to allow a person to post who continually crows about how "peak oil never happened" while simultaneously demonstrating that he/she/it doesn't understand the basics of what was supposed to happen. This has the combined effects of irritating the people who have come here to discuss the real issues, disrupting genuine debate and misleading people who have come here to learn about peak oil having recently come across the idea. And it is all being done quite deliberately.

The truth, as everybody else here acknowledges, is that the easy oil has already been had, that a combination of rising population and declining resources are going to ensure that oil prices are only going to go higher, that fracking is nothing more than a short-term means of delaying the more serious declines and that the financial chaos that began 2008 is closely linked to the peak oil (because the financial system requires unlimited growth and peak oil makes this physically impossible.)

This truth is what "Ralph" is trying to obscure, and I see no reason why he should be allowed to do so. I do not believe in banning people just because they disagree with me, but I do believe in banning them if they have come to a board like this with the sole goal of disrupting the existing community and intentionally misleading newcomers. There are so many genuine topics for discussion here - scientific, economic, political, ideological, psychological, practical, etc... Why are we wasting our energy having to deal with a person whose sole reason for coming here is to deny that any of those debates are worth having, on the grounds that they are based on a flawed set of assumptions? If he had even the slightest genuine case, then I'd be all for allowing him to go on posting, but he doesn't. He's just like a creationist who goes on an on about how half an eye isn't any use for anything, and therefore Darwinism is nonsense.

"Ralph" is RGR.
User avatar
adam2
Site Admin
Posts: 8376
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: North Somerset

Post by adam2 »

extractorfan wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:My instinct is to never engage in the banning of dissent. Even if I think the dissent is stupid or, even, mischievous. I realize that there is a line in the sand for everything, even a lack of willingness to ban. but, I don't think the idiot Ralph has reached that yet.

One option could be, as I think UE has suggested, to limit the threads where he could post. I don't actually know about the logistics about that on here and whether it would be possible. Even then, though, I would be extremely reluctant.
I agree, don't ban anyone.

Infuriating though it is, other people probably read this forum and don't participate, people who view the world the same way, to ban people like that turns the discussion into a vague type of propaganda.

I enjoy watching the debate personally too, no matter how often I see the same old refutations, I don't know why.
I can see the arguments either way, and yes I suspect that it is another incarnation of RGR. A ban may be going too far AT PRESENT.

Taken literaly though, I can not agree with "dont ban anyone"
I have deleted about 6 members just today !
A few of their posts remain in the "spam and abuse" or "off topic" forums mainly adverts for food preperation facilities, fake documents, payday loans, and villas to rent.
Spammers and scammers I delete without mercy or consideration or consultation.

Established members I would only ban or delete after consultation with the original admin team.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Blue Peter
Posts: 1939
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Milton Keynes

Post by Blue Peter »

Whilst I doubt that this applies to Ralph, or even that this little groups merits any attention, this article is quite eye-opening on the work of GCHQ to manipulate information, groups and reputations on the internet:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014 ... ipulation/


Peter.
Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the seconds to hours?
Post Reply