leonarde

I am a 1 day member here, a refugee from the ARN
forum discussion board (an evolution/Intelligent
design/creationist board). Our board was taken
down on Friday a TAD early (before the scheduled
upgrade)when 2 (or perhaps more) infiltrators from
Infidels purposely tried (and succeeded) in creating "flame wars" which degraded the level of
civility and the intellectual integrity of ARN.
I bring this up here, not to remonstrate with the
perpetrators (I have done that elsewhere on this
Board) but to ask a general ethical question: Is
it ethical to purposely subvert civility and order
at another board just because one doesn't agree
with the belief system/politics/religion etc. of
that other board? I am NOT talking about using
argumentation/evidence etc. to argue certain points and/or contest the arguments of the opposition. The infiltrators in question admitted
on Infidels forums that their game was subversion
(both while it was going on and after ARN was shut
down).
(I omit the names of the purpetrators since it is
the general proposition I am interested in here)
Any opinions?

99Percent

Of course its unethical, but all forums should be able to deal with spam and trolling and flame wars as it is inevitable. Here at Infidels we have extensive moderation with specific rules that handle those situations.

One of the reasons we have been able to survive religious spamming is that we have a special forum where we can move topics there (Rants Raving and Preaching or Miscelaneous Religious Discussion) so it works very nicely as an escape valve. Religious forums can't afford that luxury because they are afraid of any views that are contrarian to their beliefs.

Bill Snedden

It's an interesting question. I'm not sure that I would regard trolling or spamming as specifically unethical behavior, but it's certainly rude and in direct contravention of rational discourse, something for which this board explicitly stands.

I'm curious as to how this could bring down an entire board, however. Couldn't the perpetrators simply be banned? I know that UBB (the software that we currently use) provides a number of options specifically for this purpose.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Megatron

I'm with 99% on this one - if it weren't for the constant need to silence dissention, religious forums wouldn't have so many problems.

But I'll go a little further.

If your definition of spam, trolls, and flames are the same as the average Xian board moderator and/or admin, then the definition is likely to include almost anything that is not pro-religion (and, as is the case with some, all that is not in favor exclusively to your particular flavor of religion).

In other words, I'm willing to bet that what you call an attempt at subversion was actually an injection of reason... even if worded somewhat caustically - this is a side-effect of the frustration ( <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> ) encountered when a rational person presents the same evidence repeatedly to a crowd that closes its own eyes and ears to avoid it.

Closing down the board in a response to trolls and spammers is not a solution, it is a convenient method of escape.

- Z_A

P.S. - Do you have any evidence on hand of the "subversive" posts? You should know a group of skeptics is not going to accept your accusations (with or without knowing the specific members involved) on your word alone.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Zero Angel ]</p>

leonarde

Thanks all! Here I was just curious about the
general ethical proposition as I had never even
considered it before. Practical considerations:
how do moderators/administrators stop it, was not
my main focus. Neither was "naming names" or rehashing the details that I went thru yesterday
in a certain thread in Rants, raves (and Practical
jokes?).
I just never appreciated the ARN board, which I
had read 12 to 14 months and participated in since
September, until it was undone.
The moderator intervention at ARN was sporadic
and perhaps this is what contributed to the unraveling. Yet even we "old timers" were a bit
confused: at times the trolls seemed (semi)serious
in their disputes. Only in the last day or two
was the sabotage plain as day (to me) in its INTENDEDNESS: yet others said: "oh, just ignore it". Anyway perhaps I'll spend more time here anyway as the registration process is the point
of inertia that must be overcome and I've overcome
it already.

JL

If it's a religious forum, and a poster realizes the information they're posting is in effect an attack on that religion then sure I suppose I would say it's unethical, but more like just plain obnoxious.

JL

I missed the evolution aspect of the forum in your op, so without knowing what was posted it's hard to say since it seems to be inviting an atheist perspective. It could very well be your opinion and mine of what constitutes 'subverting civility and order' might be very different.

echidna

Leonarde, FWIW, I’m not familiar at all with the details of this dispute but I definitely find flame wars from any perspective to be utterly pointless and destructive to all parties involved. What is even more embarrassing is when flame wars are couched to appear intellectual. This is their most common form.

Unfortunately there will always be people who behave this way (and probably also times when we ourselves behave this way). I know there are those who differ, but I don’t think there is any reason other than self-gratification which justifies simply bringing out the worst in people.

It was when I arrived, and it still is the most unpleasant thing about this board. Fortunately I don’t think these vocal few reflect the attitudes of the majority.

Vorkosigan

I think your presentation of the ARN debate is a trifle one-sided. Do you have any evidence that anyone from Infidels deliberately went over to ARN with the intention of inducing flame wars with the intent to bring down the board? Why would any of us bother to do that? Christian boards multiply like bacteria.

My experience with Christian boards is just the opposite: that when the atheists become effective, the moderators shut the board down. Christianity is essentially authoritarian and cannot tolerate alternative or opposing views. The ongoing saga of places like Harun Yajaya's Board, ICR's refusal to even permit non-Creationists to post, ARN's recent troubles, ILJ (which had to be shut down when a mad Xtian advocated genocide), my recent excursion into the boards for payableondeath, and several other boards tends to confirm this judgement. CARM remains an outstanding exception to this rule, and Metacrock's boards are also open to all.

Michael

leonarde

Michael,
Thanks for you input! I'm really trying to
put all that behind me now. I just wonder about
the general ethical principle(s).
Echidna, thanks for your statements! Such wisdom
makes me glad I became a member...