Frankly I think that's a pretty silly position -- it ignores the clear fact that using a sock puppet in the manner in question is unethically deceptive, and the motivation behind equating it with cowardice could betray a sense of some kind of personal threat (such as, perhaps, the fear of losing a boisterous, affirmational advocate), rather than an objective analysis, but in any case such a position requires a lack of intellectual rigor and a questionable level of comfort with forming hasty, poorly considered conclusions.

Leaving the Sheila account alone is a perfectly reasonable choice of (non)action, but if anything it would be a demonstration of patience.

1) I think that's been covered, and 2) that wouldn't be the reason the account would be deleted.

Byron

__________________
At that time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before . . .

Until you guys can demonstrate where Sheila has been promoting JP Holding (rather than merely his website etc) I fail to see how Sheila is a "sock puppet".

Links to posts as examples, please.

Or is this an ad homenim? Er, ad Elapinim (since Sheila's an Elapine.)

Goth, the Richard Carrier comparison is interesting. Can anyone imagine Carrier coming here, calling people "cowards" and demanding they come out of their "roach holes," and promoting his own work under a false name? If he did, I'd have no problem banning him in a heartbeat. Of course, it's hard to imagine him doing it.

__________________
Eddie
Moderator, Movie Forums
TIP: Don't feed the trolls

Punkish,

J.P. Holding, playing "Sheila," refers to himself in the third person exclusively. That's a "sock puppet" -- when an "I" supports himself using "he."

He has linked to his own website (and quoted himself) probably over a dozen times in two days. He clearly came here to promote J.P. Holding. Just a couple examples I found in about ten seconds:

http://www.thebeastmovie.com/forums/...5&postcount=11

http://www.thebeastmovie.com/forums/...6&postcount=42

__________________
Eddie
Moderator, Movie Forums
TIP: Don't feed the trolls

To Punkish:

Well.....


By stating that sheila is "vested with holding's authority" it is being indirectly implied that sheila is representative of holding, but not holding himself.

So in a manner, any argument presented by sheila, is of holding's design, yet not directly attributed to holding himself.
So in a way, it is sort of third party, promotion of a position.


I still however, stand by my position that this is not worthy of a ban.





Well, I propose the admin's/moderators create a new section in the "General" area of the forum, entitled "Forum Announcements" and sticky it there.

I think that particular section should be kept solely to the administrators/mods respectively, and all others should be barred from posting.

We allready have an area for Movie announcements, but I do not think we have an area for Forum announcements specifically.

By keeping it free of other posters, we can avoid the inevitable problem of announcements being buried under arguments, and red-herrings that will only serve to bury the original intent of the post.

It would be very apparent to all, easy to link to, and immediately visible to all who came here, instead of sticking it in some sub-forum, where it will inevitably be buried alive, under a bunch of random posts.


The "sticky compramise" has allready been accepted by sheila as an acceptable alternative. I hope the admins/mods agree.


Putting it in another point of view, I think that banning holding's account would do more damage to the athiest cause, than not.
I mean, here we have a respected member of the christian apologetics movement, positioning himself in the line of fire for athiests.
If holding truly is as reprehensible as so many make him out to be, then let it be displayed here for all to see, as proof of the assertions.

But if not, then I think that it's a grand opportunity to attempt to prove any points one might have to make.
I can't imagine allowing such an asset to slip through our collective fingers.

Ultimately, we all have to realise that the internet has it's own rules.
Whoever laughs last, laughs longest. And just like politics, whoever is loudest, is the one people pay attention to the most.

Right or wrong, that's how life is, and we'd better start accepting it.
Taking the "high road" (if you wish to call it that) and not engaging debate might be the acceptable road to take, but ultimately, your only shooting yourself in the foot.

I say fight. If sheila proves to be vitriolic, and offers nothing more than ad-hominems, and fails to back it up with proof or evidence, then call sheila out on it! Make sheila an example publicly.

The argument needs to be tailored to the opponent.

It's this failing that has caused the downfall of MANY a christian.
Many christians fail to understand that "God said it, thus it's true" doesn't FLY WITH ATHIESTS!!

I could care less about the so called, "sins" because I don't beleive in them. So they don't affect me.
If you want to convince me that I'm doing bad things, then you're going to have to use my own world view against me.

That's one thing that athiests commonly have against christians. Their ability to turn the bible against itself. The CONSTANT road block christians face, is their inability (on this forum at least) to seperate their own theology from the athiest methodology. It has been shown repeatedly to fail.

I say, take a cue from this precident, and fight sheila on common ground.
Tailor the argument to how sheila presents it.

If it fails, it fails. We can all shake hands at the end, and leave as respected opponents, with honor.
If you win, you win. And again, we can all respect each other at the end of the day.

I say, give sheila the chance to fight. If sheila breaks any rules here on out, then ban sheila, and I'll definately support the decision.
But I think we ought to give sheila the FAIR chance first.


And this is my last post today, as I'm feeling VERY ill suddenly.

Cheers all, have a groovy day.



Love,
Goth_Slut

__________________
My favorite universe analogy:
A circle has a finite diameter, and a finite circumference, yet the ratio between the two is infinite.

[edited, didn't say that very well]

I must be blind, but I can't see in post #42 where Sheila refers to Holding. I'll read it again...Nope. Perhaps you'd point me to criticisms of Randall Helms (for example, since that is one of the links in the post) which is of similar quality to the one on Tekton?

Wikipedia (which I've seen linked to as defining 'sock puppet' here) says


Please point to Holding's *other* account on this community?

So again I say, this is about removing Sheila on insufficient grounds, rather than actual evidence she is doing Holding-promotion here. (If you went on another forum and pointed to a post you wrote here, is that self-promotion?)

Great post, Goth and GET WELL SOON

http://www.thebeastmovie.com/forums/...6601#post26601

I beleive posts #5 and #8 are being called into question here.

If that helps any.





Love,
Goth_Slut

__________________
My favorite universe analogy:
A circle has a finite diameter, and a finite circumference, yet the ratio between the two is infinite.

Goth,

I like the idea of a compromise, but here's the problem with the Sticky solution. What do we do the NEXT time someone does what Sheila/Holding/Wurkel has done? Everybody gets to do this, or just Holding?

We'll have a separate forum where we list all the identities of people who shill for themselves? Everyone has to check this forum to see who is who? What about those who don't see it? Those people get fooled?

Also, I'm not proposing banning J.P. Holding. Just the sock puppet he has created apparently so that he can use a nastier tone and promote his website here. Banning "Sheila" of course is not tantamount to banning Holding. "Sheila" doesn't exist.

I can't see how allowing Mr. Holding to post as himself is being in any way unfair to him.

__________________
Eddie
Moderator, Movie Forums
TIP: Don't feed the trolls

Thanks again to all who offered comments.

Given the crude way J.P. Holding has chosen to respond as "Sheila," there is now a new question: Should someone be exempted from banning if they make threats about what they'll do? While we never hoped to win over the readers of sites like tektonics.com, making "Sheila's" threat rather impotent, it matters that the threat was made at all.

My present thoughts: The idea that J.P. Holding came here honestly seeking a civil discussion about issues is pretty far-fetched. He showed up two days ago, playing a cartoon character, has already racked up 52 posts filled with insults and vitriol, and has relentlessly promoted his own website without disclosing that he's the owner of that website. When he doesn't get the response he wants to his arguments, he answers with more insults and vitriol. This is not consistent with someone who simply wants to express his point of view. It IS consistent with someone who wants to poison the environment at a forum he doesn't like.

We need to allow everyone to have freedom to express their opinions. But we don't need to allow trolls to destroy the environment here. We've taken no suicide pact.

I think a ban combined with an invitation to Holding himself to come here and honestly post his opinion in a civil manner is the right solution. I do agree that it would be valuable to have his opinion here -- as far as I know, his arguments could be rock-solid. But there's no reason he can't do it in an honest and non-troll-like manner, and with proper disclosure when he's promoting his own website.

If Holding refuses the invitation, we'll know that he doesn't want to come here and honestly engage in a civil debate. If he does come here, he most certainly won't be banned merely for making good arguments. That's never happened here, and it never will.

__________________
Eddie
Moderator, Movie Forums
TIP: Don't feed the trolls