2010-10-20 07:35:44RSVP earns a special mention
doug_bostrom

dbostrom@clearwire...
184.77.83.151

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=425#28356

In  "Throwing stones at the greenhouse effect":

michael_sweet
"In the absence of CO2 the ocean would freeze."

Now you are saying CO2 is necessary for life. Can you make up you mind? Not to long ago you were telling me it was pollution. 

It's John's posting and anyway another moderator has attempted to deal w/RSVP,  but if this were strictly my decision I'd go in with a mop and bucket and clean up that comment, all of RSVP's subsequent remarks plus any related replies.

RSVP needs to be kept on a very short leash because he's got a knack for making a mess of discussions while getting his strange kicks.

2010-10-20 14:04:45Policy question
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.160.198

Which comments policy would qualify that comment for deletion?

I have considered adding a new comments guideline, "take it serious, you idiots, this is our children's future we're talking about!!!" but it's a slippery moderation slope.

2010-10-20 18:43:37
doug_bostrom

dbostrom@clearwire...
184.77.83.151

A good question, John, and no simple answer except that we know this person's history on the site. 

Attempting to exactly describe RSVP's irritating proclivity for manipulating comment threads for entertainment reminds me somewhat of United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's remarks concerning trying to perfectly identify smut: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description... perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..."

I suppose at the end of the day, the analog for open comment threads is more that of a pub as opposed to a private gathering. Unless somebody begins actually smashing the fixtures you really can't invite them to leave, or refuse to open the door when they knock. 

 

2010-10-21 03:47:48
Ned

ned.flounders@yahoo...
129.170.23.6

Wow, that thread is a real mess.

RSVP's sole reason for participating here seems to be to tie the site up in knots.  Unfortunately, I think he is succeeding pretty well in that thread.  I'm a bit concerned that the author of the blog post is getting sucked in to a debate with RSVP via the blue boxes.  There are a number of disadvantages to that.  

There are times that I wish we had a general-purpose clause in the Comments Policy saying something like "Deliberately disruptive comments, and comments that seem so stupid that a reasonable observer would suspect they might represent trolling, will be deleted."  On the other hand, if we had such a clause I probably would have abused it more than once already.  With the large and increasing number of moderators, keeping off John's "slippery slope" becomes more and more important I guess.

2010-10-21 06:20:18
doug_bostrom

dbostrom@clearwire...
184.77.83.151
Well, for my part I'm just going to try find the little chink in RSVP's armor leading to shame and self-consciousness, and try my best to be polite while so doing.
2010-10-21 13:11:47
Ned

ned.flounders@yahoo...
71.181.49.164
Heh.  Good luck with that, Doug (finding a chink in the armor with some indication of substance behind it, that is ... you're always admirably polite so no luck is needed with that)
2010-10-21 19:15:50
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209

Maybe the best way to deal with this guy is not to take him seriously. Just throw an ironic sentence and try to close the discussion. If it is a long comment we may be able to find a tiny contraddiction or blatant error and focus on it to derail his discussion.

It isn't easy, but our interest is avoiding the hijacking and let other people freely comment.

P.S. The ""take it serious, you idiots,[...]" proposal is the nearest thing to the truth I can think of :)

2010-10-22 12:42:09
Ned

ned.flounders@yahoo...
71.181.49.164

Looks like the Evil Waste Heat Zombie has re-emerged from its grave.  True to Hollywood convention, this sequel is replaying all the tropes of its predecessor; the only difference is that a new generation of heroes is in pursuit of the monster.  Of the original cast (Doug, Tom Dayton, Ned, Adelady, CBDunkerson, and KR) only the latter two are back in the sequel, though Doug has a brief cameo.  They are joined by hot new stars Bibliovermis and "e", whose idealism and youthful determination to slay the monster is as yet unswayed by the cautionary words of their more experienced colleagues.

Will our heroes succeed where their predecessors failed?  Can the Waste Heat Zombie be stopped?  Or will Bibliovermis and "e" find themselves ensnared in its nefarious Fog of Unphysical Nonsense?  The SkS team's powerful reasoning and evidence have defeated many villains before ... but the Waste Heat Zombie just might be immune to those weapons.

In a nod to his starring role in the first film -- who could forget his stunning unveiling of Flanner 2009? -- the sequel has been dedicated to Doug Bostrom. 

SkS versus the Waste Heat Zombie II: The Next Generation.  Coming soon to a theater near you.

2010-10-22 14:50:48
doug_bostrom

dbostrom@clearwire...
184.77.83.151

Hah! I was thinking soap opera, featuring seamlessly connected variations of slightly different players and details sharing the same general plot but you've nailed it, Ned.

The amazing thing is that RSVP actually advertises his M.O., R S V P, but we cannot help but bite.

2010-10-22 21:54:38LOL Ned
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.160.198
The moderators just need to remember the #1 rule:

Operor non nutritor trolls

2010-10-23 02:18:11
doug_bostrom

dbostrom@clearwire...
184.77.83.151

I'm straining not to feed the troll, but I'm also eagerly waiting to see if he explodes if he's fed enough by volunteers. "Just one thin mint, sir?" He began sporadically emitting all-caps a few comments ago, an early hint of going supercritical. 

I think we're seeing the development of a discussion that will be famous throughout the climate blogosphere. It's even got the perfect title, "Waste heat."  John, you ought to consider charging spectators admission fees to view the spectacle.

2011-02-15 08:23:31
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.102

I'm pretty tolerant of most posters (to the point where I should be quicker with the delete button), but this one from RSVP is just from pure spite:

RSVP at 08:13 AM on 15 February 2011

It doesnt take much to know what "side" a poster is on. It's not as much what, is being said as how it is being said. Supporters of AGW are generally nasty, rude, intolerant and generally disgusting.

 

I've never called for the banning of anyone (even Poptech), but I think RSVP's just asking for it.