Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Walter Ego]

Here's the latest hilarity from the A+ forum. Prominent atheist Matt Dillahunty created a sock account to verify whether or not people really were getting banned for just trying to openly debate on the forum, and subsequently got his post deleted for… openly debating on the forum.

Dillahunty sock:

This is the way you treat new people - people who ask legitimate questions and who were trying to help?

And after revealing himself:

Matt Dillahunty wrote:

Because I'm friends with the people who started [A+], I trusted (and still pretty much do) that the complaints were exaggerated. After all, I was on the back-channel list when the name was suggested, I was posting videos clarifying the subject, I was talking-up Atheism+ alongside PZ and Greta at the Denver AAA convention.

And then, I someone sent me a link to a post where someone had objected to some points Greta had made. The individual got some things right and some things wrong...and could have been corrected on it. Instead, they wound up banned - after some rather frustrating conversation.

I wanted to post about that, but I didn't want to post under my own name - because I wanted to prove that ANYONE could point out what was right and wrong about a post and make suggestions on improving our image and reaching the people who WOULD BE in agreement with us, if it weren't for the confusing and constant misinformation that is out there.

As it turns out, I was wrong. My post was deleted, unread, based solely on the opinion of a single moderator. When I tried to point out the problem in this process - as anyone would who was surprised to have their post deleted...well, you can see what kind of response I got.

I am stunned.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1502&start=25#p21788

Poor Matt, expecting the best in people. He had to learn the hard way.

(In case this incident disappears down the memory hole, what with the Soviet-style revisionism in this "movement," cashed versions of the thread can be found here and here.)

 

[Badger3k]

Here's the latest hilarity from the A+ forum. Prominent atheist Matt Dillahunty created a sock account to verify whether or not people really were getting banned for just trying to openly debate on the forum, and subsequently got his post deleted for… openly debating on the forum.

Dillahunty sock:



And after revealing himself:



Poor Matt, expecting the best in people. He had to learn the hard way.

(In case this incident disappears down the memory hole, what with the Soviet-style revisionism in this "movement," cashed versions of the thread can be found here and here.)

Yeah, they are piling it on thick and deep, and as sad as it is to say, he appears to be buying into it. There is hope that he sees some of the truth about his "friends" there, though. He admits that the critics are right (at least in part). I wonder what he thinks of the would-be cannibal?

I did like the way the plussers said that if they knew it was Matt, they never would have done that to him. They openly admit that it's not what you are asking, but who is asking. We also see the latest in "Schrodinger's cliches" - "Schrodinger's Troll". You seriously could not make this stuff up - nobody would believe it.

 

[devnull]

Here's the latest hilarity from the A+ forum. Prominent atheist Matt Dillahunty created a sock account to verify whether or not people really were getting banned for just trying to openly debate on the forum, and subsequently got his post deleted for… openly debating on the forum.

Did I or did I not say how surprised I was Matt fell for this crap? PZ doesnt surprise me at all, but I always thought Dillahunty was smarter than that.

Im glad to see that perhaps he was just asleep at the wheel.

 

[devnull]

Hey, Matt? Remember Tom Johnson? Because...well...You're Not Helping.

Oh, I love this Responds with a complete diversion (vaguely related due to sockpuppetry) and *completely* misses the point of what Matt was saying.

I still dont get why they feel the need to confuse atheism/rationalism/skepticism with their personal pet causes. I just *dont get it*.

 

[chillzero]

Good grief.
He makes a good point that they are removing too many posts as being perceived as trolls. They respond by berating him, and claim that only his post was mistakenly deleted - that he's a single 'false postivie' troll: the exception that proves the rule, almost.

Not one of them has considered - maybe he has a point, and we've been too draconian in our moderation, or too closed to varying opinions.

 

[Temecula]

If I hear him say so much as one word in defense of Dogma+ on the AE podcast I'll vomit. I don't see how someone who otherwise appears to be exceptionally logical and intelligent could get sucked into this new religion. Another pseudo-celebrity bites the dust.

 

[zooterkin]

So, will he be banned for having a sockpuppet? (As he would be, here, of course.)

 

[Wildy]

I doubt it zooterkin. Would make an interesting experiment to make an account and then a sockpuppet to see what would happen to someone who isn't popular.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oh, I love this Responds with a complete diversion (vaguely related due to sockpuppetry) and *completely* misses the point of what Matt was saying.

I still dont get why they feel the need to confuse atheism/rationalism/skepticism with their personal pet causes. I just *dont get it*.

Because clearly they reached their positions through rational thought and as such their positions are the only one people engaged in rational thought can hold.

It is a fairly common fallacy that happens to everyone.

 

[tsig]

So, will he be banned for having a sockpuppet? (As he would be, here, of course.)

It does seem a test of their principles doesn't it? Personally I'd ban him for his sense of entitlement as well as breaking a rule.

Note: I have not read their forum rules so lesser penalties could be called for.

 

[RebeccaBradley]

Interesting. Matt subjects A+ to a test, and A+ fails. I suspect that if they had passed the test, as Matt confidently expected they would, they would be much more forgiving of the sockpuppetry aspect. In fact, I suspect they'd be trumpeting Matt's experiment as evidence of how fair and open they are, and how misplaced the criticisms have been.

On page 4 of the thread, there's an amusing sidelight on "privilege":

The notion that "good faith" should be assumed is a privileged position: it assumes that one is safe and secure enough to take the risk that is inherent in such an assumption. Some people don't have that safety and security - and the history of the forums here proves that this is one such place were "good faith" is extremely costly, given the huge amount of trolling that takes place.

The "good faith" in question refers to the fact (which they admit) that all new posters are assumed to be potential trolls until they somehow prove themselves otherwise. I wonder if the Plussers can see the circularity of this? That they're defining all dissent or even naive questioning as "trolling", and then complaining about how many trolls they get? Matt should be congratulated on providing evidence that this is, indeed, the case.

 

[chillzero]

The "good faith" in question refers to the fact (which they admit) that all new posters are assumed to be potential trolls until they somehow prove themselves otherwise. I wonder if the Plussers can see the circularity of this? That they're defining all dissent or even naive questioning as "trolling", and then complaining about how many trolls they get? Matt should be congratulated on providing evidence that this is, indeed, the case.

I notice some one pointed this out to them ... and was berated for being anoob themself and not appreciating how terrible and awful the trolling has been and what a wonderful job the mods are doing under the circumstances.
The person advising the mods and members said that this behaviour did not encourage them to become a more involved member. They were basically told that the forum didn't really want people like them anyway, in that case.

 

[Acleron]

It was amusing how the mod was quite full of him/herself in making decisions that were obviously correct and then claimed 'I'm new on the job' when Dillahunty's id was revealed.

 

[westprog]

I notice some one pointed this out to them ... and was berated for being anoob themself and not appreciating how terrible and awful the trolling has been and what a wonderful job the mods are doing under the circumstances.
The person advising the mods and members said that this behaviour did not encourage them to become a more involved member. They were basically told that the forum didn't really want people like them anyway, in that case.

I don't often get genuinely shocked by posts on the internet but this interaction between piegasm and Cuduggan2K2 actually upset me.

 

[dasmiller]

I don't often get genuinely shocked by posts on the internet but this interaction between piegasm and Cuduggan2K2 actually upset me.

That was . . . mind-boggling.

Words are failing me.

I'll be interested to see how they respond to your comment.

 

[westprog]

That was . . . mind-boggling.

Words are failing me.

I'll be interested to see how they respond to your comment.

Oh, I can guess.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It was amusing how the mod was quite full of him/herself in making decisions that were obviously correct and then claimed 'I'm new on the job' when Dillahunty's id was revealed.

Should have double downed. Say he was clearly trolling through a sock puppet.

 

[dasmiller]

Oh, I can guess.

Yeah, from what I've seen so far, I wouldn't give them a good grade on "Handles criticism well."

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't often get genuinely shocked by posts on the internet but this interaction between piegasm and Cuduggan2K2 actually upset me.

Wow, that is some screwed up ****.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That was . . . mind-boggling.

Words are failing me.

I'll be interested to see how they respond to your comment.

People should save it before they remove the evidence.