Data Dumps yes or no?

[jgoodguy]

What is one person "inaccurate information" is another persons "gospel truth". I'm sure he did not post knowing that he was wrong but believing he was right. So I think some tolerance on our part is warranted.

And I admit I was waiting for him to start up his "Lincoln was an evil racist" thread just to watch the storm that it would generate and then to watch him flounder.

Please ,let stick to the contents of his posts and not the poster.

 

[Chattahooch33]

We could just not feed the trolls. Then they get bored and leave.

And that goes for both sides.

Many times I see a thread title and my first thought is "well, that's an argument waiting to happen. Maybe everyone will just ignore it." Then I look at the total replies and there are hundreds.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

The issue is not much the information, but the volume. Check out
Urban Dictionary: Gish Gallop

In action
Duane Gish - Wikipedia

Ugh. I forced myself to read a book by him once. I still feel unclean.

Of course, the "Gish Gallop" is just a fancy way of restating the old "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull----." It's a way of technically winning an argument without actually proving anything, and then pointing to the argument thus "won" as proof of correctness. File under "Tricks, Oratorical."

 

[UCVRelics]

All of the current inputs are valid points. Even though I am a fairly new member when the call went out for support to keep the site up due to needing more space I jumped in even with the small amount that it was. I really enjoy the site and the folks on this forum but I think one way to keep it data dump problem in hand is a solution that is use on my relic hunters site. If not a charter member ($20) you post are limited to certain amount. If people are really interested in joining our community and enjoy it they will gladly pony up. Plus @civilwartalk would not have to send out pleas for donation to keep the site up. Just my thoughts.

 

[jgoodguy]

Info that has been sent to me. I have not verified to any great extent

https://www.tapatalk.com/topic/16850-total-war-center/729580-a-critical-look-at-abraham-lincoln

http://www.seznam.name/rss-clanek-23371635/2016-06-25/the-origins-of-the-lincoln-myth.html
http://www.norbsoftdev.net/forum/the-american-civil-war/72987-the-origins-of-the-lincoln-myth
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?733496-The-Origins-of-the-Lincoln-Myth

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?729580-A-Critical-look-at-Abraham-Lincoln
(a copy+past of what he posted on the war of rights forum. including much of his replies)

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...onfederacy&highlight=Life+as+a+Southern+Slave
(again exact same post as on the war of rights forum)

And here:
Nathan Bedford Forrest "The Wizard of the Saddle"
http://www.ageod-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=50136&p=384824&hilit=lincoln#p384824

George B McClellan the Most Underrated general of the Civil war
http://www.ageod-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=49821&p=387985&hilit=lincoln#p387985

and on the war of rights forum.
(he got banned so they where removed)

His tactics are the same. Post so much text that noone can keep up.
When asked for sources he usually don't give them fully.
(note that none of his quotes in his "lsave" topic give the full source.)

When someone is critical of his use of the keneddy brothers members of the abeville instituted or other very bias organisations

He reply with "Red Herring" "off topic" and fancy latin words... ad hominem...

He got a rather clear political agenda and he is spreading it on a number of forums.
thomas aagaard Today at 9:02 AMHis first topic was:
The rifle musket in civil war combat revolution or evolution

It can also be found here:
http://www.norbsoftdev.net/forum/th...t-in-civil-war-combat-revolution-or-evolution
and
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...t-in-civil-war-combat-revolution-or-evolution

Another example is this:
A Critical Look at Abraham Lincoln
http://www.norbsoftdev.net/forum/the-american-civil-war/72753-a-critical-look-at-abraham-lincoln

http://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?2318-A-Critical-look-at-Abraham-Lincoln

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?729580-A-Critical-look-at-Abraham-Lincoln/page2

https://www.tapatalk.com/topic/16850-total-war-center/729580-a-critical-look-at-abraham-lincoln


At least his Slavery post on TWcenter is different...
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...-Slavery-in-the-CSA-America-and-World-History

 

[Rebforever]

A data dump is a very large cut and paste post or multiple posts in thread with inaccurate information, bad links, inaccurate or no references etc designed to overwhelm members by volume/bulk and incite them. There may be a better term than data dump. IMHO it is a form of trolling.

I personally feel it is an abuse of posting privileges. It may nominally be in the rules, but the sheer volume is intended to overwhelm the members. Therefore this rule may apply:

Community Guidelines


examples:
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/life-as-a-southern-slave.128385/
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?733496-The-Origins-of-the-Lincoln-Myth

Then we had these 2 posts in secession.
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/oh-...confederate-thread.128420/page-2#post-1415854
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/oh-...confederate-thread.128420/page-2#post-1415857

Comments?

As long as it is the same for everyone. I know there are some historians here that do that and this seems to handy cap those folks.

 

[KeyserSoze]

The issue is not much the information, but the volume. Check out
Urban Dictionary: Gish Gallop

I know. But I figure that I can either read it or treat it like my niece's Facebook posts and skim right past it, my choice. If you're looking for opinion then unless there is a performance or cost issue involved with dumping the load of **** on the site then I would err on the side of tolerance. As Winston Churchill once said, "If you want to enjoy the blessings of free speech then you need to be willing to put up with some foolish speech."

 

[jgoodguy]

As long as it is the same for everyone. I know there are some historians here that do that and this seems to handy cap those folks.

The rules will be applied equability. Them with good links and references are gold and the ones without not so much.

 

[John Winn]

I'm of mixed feelings about this and other behaviors that I don't care for but I don't think there's really a good solution other than just ignore such threads and posts. Writing some rule to cover all the possibilities and define what's allowed and what isn't would end up looking like tax code. There's a number of our members, though, who just can't ignore something they don't agree with (and I suspect a subset of them just like to argue) so we'll always have such threads and repeat beating all those dead horses.

Personally, I've developed a sense of what's worth my time and what's not and I just don't get bogged down in what I consider to be pointless debates with essentially anonymous people on the internet. My first guiding rule is if I'm not likely to learn anything then it's not worth spending any time on. If someone is particularly egregious I might post a few sentences of opinion but then I'm done but even that's usually a waste of my time.

So my vote is leave the rules as they are and try a little self discipline. You don't have to read every thread and right every wrong.

 

[CivilWarTalk]

I like how this question was answered on another site:

Simply calling attention to the technique should be sufficient. For example, "You have listed a number of arguments, all of which deserve to be addressed. However, let's take one at a time."

A more assertive response might be "You have made many unsupported claims, all of which have been debunked ad nauseaum." You can continue with "I would be glad to debunk them all for you here, but this would be outside the scope of this debate." or "Let's take them one at a time."

Another technique is to simply provide a link to place where someone else responded to the claim. For example:

Person 1: The earth is flat. Pigs fly. Elvis is still alive.
Person 2:
"The earth is flat." - No, it's not: http://nasa.gov...
"Pigs fly" - No, they don't: http://pigsdontfly.com...
"Elvis is still alive" - No, he's not: http://elvisiswormfood.com...

The important part is to project confidence that these claims being made are without merit (if, in fact they are).

https://www.dowellwebtools.com/tool...o_I_counter_the_gish_gallop_in_a_typed_debate

 

[John Winn]

I like how this question was answered on another site:



https://www.dowellwebtools.com/tool...o_I_counter_the_gish_gallop_in_a_typed_debate

That's a good suggestion but it still takes time. I've also noted that those with an agenda often will argue that the "accepted" books and historians are wrong or have distorted the "true" history or something and so it's no win trying to convince them. That's why I call them 'tar babies.' These types exist for just about any subject. Just look at the flat earth people. There's nothing one could cite as proof that they accept; everything's been faked and is a conspiracy. It's the same for our little niche subject.

I dunno, I still think we just need to learn to leave some threads/posts alone. Most of the types of posters we're talking about end up moving on before very long anyway having contributed little to nothing, only to be replaced by another similar one. Those types just go looking for places to tip over an apple cart; don't give them any apple carts and they'll move on.

It's your site so do what you think best. I just think trying to legislate this type of thing won't work.

 

[Yankeedave]

I like it.

I was just quoting another post.

 

[dlavin]

i have no weight here, just a new poster, but when someone posts that much information I dont read it.

There are much shorter ways to get your point across than riddling people with a huge post. At least in some of those cases, there was actual support listed, and not just ramblings by someone.

Maybe I have ADHD but I cant read all that and it honestly makes me lose interest in whatever subject was being discussed...I havent been back to the "Life of a Slave" thread in a while...which it could be a very informative topic, but it was not to be.

 

[jgoodguy]

I like how this question was answered on another site:



https://www.dowellwebtools.com/tool...o_I_counter_the_gish_gallop_in_a_typed_debate

That's a good suggestion but it still takes time. I've also noted that those with an agenda often will argue that the "accepted" books and historians are wrong or have distorted the "true" history or something and so it's no win trying to convince them. That's why I call them 'tar babies.' These types exist for just about any subject. Just look at the flat earth people. There's nothing one could cite as proof that they accept; everything's been faked and is a conspiracy. It's the same for our little niche subject.

I dunno, I still think we just need to learn to leave some threads/posts alone. Most of the types of posters we're talking about end up moving on before very long anyway having contributed little to nothing, only to be replaced by another similar one. Those types just go looking for places to tip over an apple cart; don't give them any apple carts and they'll move on.

It's your site so do what you think best. I just think trying to legislate this type of thing won't work.

Good points. For me I am looking to see what the community advises. Tools to deal with it already exist.

 

[Yankeedave]

It's like charades. After you said it once you don't have to keep repeating the wrong answer.

 

[E_just_E]

I think that part of the problem is the generation of multiple threats on the same topic. I bet there are a good 3 dozen on whether slavery was the cause of the war, another three dozen on black confederates and so on...
I think that if new spawns on the same subject were locked and merge to a master thread on the subject, one who wants to ignore the subject could ignore it, without having to navigate to the third page of the forum to look for something of interest.

As far as "data damps" (or whatever you want to call it) go, if someone cuts and pastes the same post in more than one threads, he/she is trolling. Also there is a different of presenting an argument/hypothesis/opinion and using a data dump of images, quotes etc to support that argument (admit that I am guilty and multiple offender of this,) and just copying and pasting a variety of sources and tossing them all in a post without cohesiveness, as others should see the light once encounter that smorgasbord of items...

I am with John W. on this. Leaving it as is and ignoring things that should be ignored (on a personal preference level) is probably the best way forward; on the other hand some moderation like locking and merging spawning threads and deleting the same posts in multiple threads would help tremendously towards allowing people to ignore things they want to ignore...

 

[unionblue]

My one and only concern by NOT answering or challenging such posts is that many, lurkers/visitors/nonmembers who visit this forum and view such threads, will ultimately take our silence for consent of the views and misinformation presented by such a poster who "dumps" large volumes of bull.

My other concern is a personal one. After refuting and challenging the seemingly endless stream of such garbage threads and posts in the past, I find myself just too weary at times to endlessly repeat my previous refuting posts over and over and over again. Sometimes it's just too much for me to put in that extra effort.

But that is my personal problem and I'll deal with it.

Again, my main concern is that by ignoring these types of posts we give the impression that we consent to such nonsense, that we are afraid to engage, or that we agree with the tripe presented. Is that what we want our visitors to come away with? That the garbage spouted in mass is actually true, factual history?

I think not.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[M.Warren]

It's your site so do what you think best. I just think trying to legislate this type of thing won't work.

Agreed. Unfortunately these sort of posts have to be dealt with on an individual basis. Some of the walls of text here are loaded with great info and are what brought me here, like many others, to start with. I agree with @unionblue that posts like these cant be ignored but legislation is a double edged sword and more often than not, effect innocent, informative posters more than the "tar babies".

 

[Dee]

i have no weight here, just a new poster, but when someone posts that much information I dont read it.

There are much shorter ways to get your point across than riddling people with a huge post. At least in some of those cases, there was actual support listed, and not just ramblings by someone.

Maybe I have ADHD but I cant read all that and it honestly makes me lose interest in whatever subject was being discussed...I havent been back to the "Life of a Slave" thread in a while...which it could be a very informative topic, but it was not to be.

I'm on the same page as you. I scrolled passed the long text since I couldn't tell if they were accurate - I let the other forum members do that since I lack the knowledge, being new myself. But I agree that the subject was interesting and would like to know more. I supposed I can search for similar threads.

Back on topic, I have never seen anything like this. I frequent mostly gaming forums or technology forums) so I have never seen this before at least on those said forums. Glad that it was noted and action is being reviewed to prevent future threads. I'm glad though that someone posted in the "Life of a Slave" thread what I was aiming to say (but he had said it a heck of a lot better than I could!).

 

[jgoodguy]

Agreed. Unfortunately these sort of posts have to be dealt with on an individual basis. Some of the walls of text here are loaded with great info and are what brought me here, like many others, to start with. I agree with @unionblue that posts like these cant be ignored but legislation is a double edged sword and more often than not, effect innocent, informative posters more than the "tar babies".

As the starter of the thread, I am not looking for legislation as much as advice and views of the members here.