Larztheloser is a troll
In a recent comment, I was accused of opening a troll account by another debater. This debate will be to determine whether, on the balance of evidence, it is likely that I opened the troll account in question. I don't appreciate being slandered on the internet and if I am found innocent, I respectfully request that my opponent retracts his statement.
The debate shall have four rounds, with 72 hours to post each round and 8000 characters to post in each.
The original comment pertains to this debate: http://www.debate.org...
The troll account in question is closed but refers to the con in that debate. My opponent in this debate was pro in that debate. The comment in question is also on that debate.
I hope my opponent is willing to stand by his statement and look forward to a good debate.
To begin I would like to clarify I assume when making statements like 'I think Larzlouser made the troll account' that its understood by others I did not mean 'and I have evidence to back that up' like anyone does not mean that on this site.
2 considerations are left that fuel my current suspicion that Troll was a multi-account of Larz. Larz while claiming the debate was too ridiculous to understand and unworthy of his accepting the debate, he actually followed it pretty close, posting enough to argue with me in the comment section that he might as well have just taken the debate. This goes to show he took interest in it while remaining against accepting the topic for its great absurdness (in his view).
Now if one does not take interest in accepting a debate due to its unfair or insulting terms or some other reason that makes you decide its an unworthy topic for you to take the challenge for it would naturally follow it was not deemed worthy of your interest either. Most of the time a person like that would just post the one opinion in the comments and then forget about the debate.
But if your ‘other’ account has accepted the debate, and it shows up on your news feed there’s a comment in the comment section, you probably can’t help but check and see your previous comment in your normal account was responded to. So naturally you go ahead and post again
The last thing that fuels my suspicion is this very debate challenge. I left one post of my paranoid conspiracy theorist FOS in my own debate. And remember the debate was forfeited by ‘Troll’ as his account was closed so the debate would probably never see the light of public eye, forfeited debates don’t ever go to the front page of the website. Also even if someone did read it looking for Ron Paul related debates to check out, people generally don’t read through the drama’s going on in the comments, they read through the debate then vote then forget about it. So this is not like I have made some public ‘slander’ in the forums with a thread labeled “Larz is a troll” (something which I have actually not what I have said about Larz, I said I think was behind the troll account that took my debate. To BE a troll Larz would have to make a regular habit of stuff like this).
So this rather has one ponder the statement ‘Me thinks he does protest too much’ If he did this why issue a whole new debate challenge over the comment? Why not just forget about if innocent? After all I’m just a faceless account that to my memory has not interacted with Larz much since either of us has been a member probably because of interest in different forums and my superficial accusations are coming during the angry frustration we know often follows from having your debate freshly Troll killed. It’s hard to see that so quickly being taken personally. Also its not like I have campaigned to have other members think he made the troll account, I made a post on a debate that probably wont get read, one which I have not nor intend to bother posting in the ‘forfeited debates’ thread. And I don’t have power to do anything with my theory I cant prove.
So for my opening conclusion, It’s still my guess that you created to the troll account given that
a) You were following the debate enough to argue in the comments
b) You are (needlessly) very quick to protest a single accusatory theory posted of you
c) Your statements about the ‘twistedness’ of the debate retracted to ‘fair to argue’ after being accused
d) And most key reason, the account actually labeled ‘Troll’ taking the debate is an act of someone supporting your opinion in the comment section that the debate was ‘twisted’ and ‘absurd’
I await my opponent (hopefully calm) response.
I thank my opponent for posting his opening round. I shall prove, in this round, why the grounds for my opponent's suspicion are all flawed and thus unreasonable.
My opponent made four main contentions that I will address first.
1. I was following the debate.
Not every follower of a debate engages in trollish behavior. A quick glance over the many debates on this site will prove this to be true.
2. I am quick to protest accusatory theories.
On the speed of my accusation, this is a necessary fact if my opponent's first contention holds. On the fact that I am protesting accusatory theories at all, what do you expect? Me to remain silent when my account is being slandered? That wouldn't be fair. As most people know (but if you don't you can check wikipedia's article on trolls: http://en.wikipedia.org...(Internet) ), accusing somebody of trolling is a form of ad hominem attack. If my opponent had posted "Larz is stupid" or "Larz is ugly" he would have recieved the same treatment.
3. Your statements about the ‘twistedness’ of the debate retracted to ‘fair to argue’ after being accused
I stand by my statement that the debate was too twisted to argue, but the argument made by my opponent in the preceeding comment was fair. However, if only my opponent had bothered to read the comment any further, he would see that I argued that the topic of the debate did not relate to the argument he had made in the comment. What I was doing was critiquing the wording of the motion, not the content of the argument, and my opponent did not seem to grasp this fact throughout all of the comments posted.
4. the account is an act of someone supporting your opinion in the comment section that the debate was ‘twisted’ and ‘absurd’
Just because a troll trolls a debate doesn't mean they think the topic is absurd. According to research conducted by Claire Hardaker, disruption caused by a troll is always "for the purposes of their own amusement" (http://gizmodo.com...). There is no causal link between me finding the topic absurd and me wanting to disrupt the proper arguing of the topic, as I made clear in my last comment. Furthermore, there is no causal link between me wanting to disrupt the topic and me actually wanting to troll it. Trolls are, by nature, driven by desire for lolz, not for desire to correct people on their wording of the motion.
Next I shall deal with some of pro's more minor points.
The very fact that an account created that very day took up the debate that was blatantly labeled 'Troll', causes my suspicion that this was a multi-account.
In that case, the suspicion is misplaced. Assuming that the troll was not me (a very good assumption), having just come on to the site, it is not unreasonable that they would immediately take and troll the very first open debate challenge - so the speed at which a troll takes up a debate has no bearing on whether they are a multi-account or not.
Named 'Troll' is obviously to send a message that the debate deserves nothing more than a troll to argue against it.
Actually it sends the message that the user is a troll. As is again apparent from a quick glance around the site, both high and low quality debates are trolled with no apparent pattern, so it seems to me a much more reasonable theory that trolls just troll any available debates, hoping to do as much damage as possible before being removed. It has no bearing on the topic.
This message being made by having a literally named 'Troll' take the debate and kill it coincidentally seems to try and make Larz's point...
My point had already been made before the topic had been taken. The topic was open for several days and none of the many fine debaters on this site took it. There was no need for me to troll the debate to stop somebody else taking it, and even if there was a need, it was never my "point" to stop somebody else taking it. I was only suggesting that the motion was absurd and twisted because you couldn't rationally straight-neg it, in my view.
posting enough to argue with me in the comment section that he might as well have just taken the debate.
That would be presupposing that the arguments in the comment section related to the topic. In every one of my comments I showed how flawed the motion was in relation to my opponent's argument, and he still did not comprehend (even when I suggested alternatives) that all I wanted to do was get him to change the wording of the motion. I did argue with my opponent in the comments section - it was a good argument - and I would have taken it were it not for the wording of the motion. However, I always made it abundantly clear that it was the motion that was stopping me, not my opponent's arguments (or else I would not have responded to them).
...you decide its an unworthy topic for you to take the challenge for it would naturally follow it was not deemed worthy of your interest either.
Not necessarily. Bad topic does not mean bad argument. My opponent had a good argument, "worthy of my interest", but not a good topic.
Most of the time a person like that would just post the one opinion in the comments and then forget about the debate.
Not me. I check over my three most recent favorite debates every time I come on DDO to see whether anybody has said anything to me there. If you look at other debates I have commented on, I almost always reply if somebody answers my comment. I consider it bad manners to leave a message directed at me unresponded to.
So this is not like I have made some public ‘slander’ in the forums
I don't care if the words "I have good reason to believe Larz trolled me" appear on the back page of the most obscure book of the world's largest library. Do a quick search on Google for "larztheloser troll" and check the top two results. My aim in making this debate is so that people can understand the absurdity in the second link's claims before they click on it. But that does not change the fact that anybody, for all eternity, who now wants to sully my good name need not look far or try very hard. It doesn't really get more public than this.
Actually not said “Larz is a troll”
Saying that you think it implies that you have good grounds for the belief. That's like saying "I have good grounds to believe that you are dumb" instead of "You are dumb."
To BE a troll Larz would have to make a regular habit of stuff like this
Wrong, according to both of the definitions I have linked.
my superficial accusations are coming during the angry frustration we know often follows from having your debate freshly Troll killed.
Just because a member is angry gives that member no right to take their fustration out on other members. I know how bad it is to get trolled, I've been through it. It's precisely because of that fact that I take this so personally.
I thank my opponent again and look forward to the next round.
Whether you were the ‘TROLL’ or not you are clearly one thing for sure, psychotically oversensitive. Or arrogant. Who in all the world wide web is going to google ‘larztheloser, troll’? the only people who will think to ever type those words into a Google search engine are the ones that read this debate that you started, their curiosity provoked by you . you case about how ‘easy it is’ for people look that up is paper thin at best
Second off if you worried about the name ‘larztheloser’ being soiled, its inherently soiled by the presence of ‘looser’ being in the name. a single web page than none shall traverse with a single post were I theorize you were the account dubbed ‘TROLL’ isn’t going to soil it.
Third, you ‘name’ is not larzetheloser. You name is ‘-private-‘ as in not made publically known. Its not shared to any extent that Larztheloser account can be connected with it and thus remains un-soilable by whatever is said by angry arguing members of a debate website.
On the point about the difference between ‘the TROLL’ and ‘a Troll’ maybe people speak differently where you are from but here in America a person who is called ‘drunk’ one time is not the same as saying they are ‘an alcoholic’. It makes a heck of a difference that I have said nothing outside that debate or this one for that matter to call you a troll. I think there are few people who wouldn’t admit that the ‘seeking the lolz’ personality or desire to just be a pain in general is not so unique that anyone isn’t capable of wanting to try that at some point in there life.
How easy is it to want to be a troll to cause others some grief just the one time especially with the kind of people who’s emotions are prone to run high like you have proved yours are with this very debate challenge. Some trolls are in it purely for the lolz, but then you have people like Izbo too that this site knows all to well. We have taken to calling there acts troll acts because they irritate us like troll acts of those in it for the lolz alone.
And as far as the lolz reasons go, it makes sense that someone who found the debate twisted would get lolz from troll killing it.
You have made many good points about the concerns that fuel my paranoia independently. No, just cause the account named himself troll does not mean anything by itself, nor that he took a open debate right away, or that you followed the debate.
But my suspicion was never based on those things looked at independently. It came from the how all those facts occurred coincidentally at the same time, and how they ‘mesh’ together as a whole. Its not just that ‘Troll’ took my debate right away with the creation of his account, its that this happened shortly in sequence with your criticisms of how ‘twisted’ the debate was. Its not just that he had chosen the name ‘Troll’ but how being self-named ‘Troll’ complemented your whole criticism.
My posted suspicion is GREATLY more harmless than you are admitting larz. Innomen still thinks you have done nothing, IP address checks are not going to go through, the people who have known you for the past year here on DDO are not looking at you differently, and my theory remains just that a theory. The only person giving any attention to that one theory post is you, even I was going to just forget about after the debate with the troll was done. If I’m right, cool I called it, if I’m wrong then its just the one post, I’m not harassing you with inquisitives PM’s, I’m not campaigning to get people to think you have turned into a troll now by challenging you to 4 round debates over whether or not you’re a troll.
I'd like to thank my opponent for continuing his case. In this round I will continue to argue that it is not likely I have opened the troll account in question.
My opponent's case now rests on four key "facts", the first of which I can deal with quickly and easily. My opponent claims that because of a whole bunch of "coincidences" I am likely to be the culprit - even if I have already proven each of those "coincidences" to be both false and, in several cases, not even coincidental. By some insufficiently-established logic, my opponent's claim seems to be that if he has a great magnitude of false contentions he must be right, simply because of the sheer volume of his contentions. This line of reasoning commits several logical fallacies, such as making a non-sequiter and ad argumentum attack. If two wrongs do not make a right, I wonder what makes my opponent believe all of his wrong arguments, put together, make his conclusion correct?
The second key fact is that my opponent still believes that he didn't soil my name in the process of saying that I am likely to have trolled his debate. My opponent dedicated a considerable proportion of his argument to this one, so I'll give it due attention. I'll deal with my opponent's arguments in the same order he did. Before I do, however, let me point out to voters that this is all completely irrelevant to the motion, which is actually about whether my opponent had good grounds to say that I was likely to be the troll of his debate. This debate is not actually about him soiling my name in the process - it's more about the fact that my opponent attacked me in the first place, without any good reason. If his position is even remotely defensible, then of course he has the free speech to say whatever he wants. In this instance, however, he has no evidence and so is trying to distract voters from the slander that this debate is really about.
First, that nobody searches "larztheloser troll" on the Internet. Well, let us suppose that somebody wants to prove that I am a troll. They're likely to search for "troll" and my online username (which is pretty common knowledge). This argument is like asking why my opponent shouldn't say that I'm lazy online, or stupid, or ugly. Not only is it offensive to me, but it vindicates other people who say those kinds of things to me - who certainly have it in their interests to try to prove exactly that. I'd rather not name names, but believe me when I say that such people exist. Not on this site, obviously, but they do.
Second, that loser is self-degrading. Even if it is, that does not give other people the right to insult me further. Even so, it isn't, because I don't see "losing" as a negative thing at all. At best, it's subjective - some things are indubitably good to lose, while others might interpret their losses negatively. Besides that, it's actually true - I have lost things in the past. Therefore, if people go around calling me a loser, I don't care. Troll, however, is not subjective - particularly in this case. How much more objectively trolling can the user in the other debate have really been? As the wikipedia link explains, troll is used almost exclusively in derogatory contexts. Besides that, it isn't true. Therefore if I am called a troll, I do care.
Third, that my real name is not shared on this site. While my real name is partially shielded from people who know me by my online avatar (although my real name can be very easily worked out from the information I give, such as by enquiring the name of the winner of the debate tournaments I listed - I mostly keep it hidden so randoms who friend me and get banned a few days later don't see it), there are very few people who know me in the real world and don't know my online avatar, simply because larztheloser also happens to be the most important part of my email address. But even if not associated with my real identity, I don't appreciate my online identity being attacked either.
The third key fact is that I haven't done it before, so according to my opponent, it must have looked really attractive to try just once when the opportunity presented itself. Actually, the opportunity is presenting itself right now, and it has since the very first debate I ever had on this site. I don't do so, however, because I consider trolling stupid and ridiculous. It's like saying, "well, I usually don't do drugs, but just because a shady dealer just walked up to me I suppose I can spend all my money on meth, just this once." No sane person would say that.
The fourth key fact is that a drunk is not an alcoholic. Imagine if, when facing allegations of wanting an open relationship, Newt Gingrich had said "well, I was immoral then, but that doesn't mean I'll always be immoral!" The point is not that I'm not likely to troll debates for the rest of my life. That's obvious. The point is that I didn't troll your debate. Besides, drunk isn't always used in a negative way, whereas troll is, so it isn't even a good example.
As far as the lolz argument goes, I've already dealt with my opponent's response - I did not need to troll kill the debate to get lolz because I had already proven my point.
If my opponent earnestly believed that nobody cared and nobody notices, he would have simply corrected his statement long ago. He could still believe whatever he wants, but there is no need to post that belief on the Internet if he has no evidence and no remaining arguments, especially as nobody cares, including him. The supposed "arguments" we have seen are absurd and even if true, all point to my opponent admitting he is wasting his time (when he could have satisfied everybody long ago by simply not suspecting me of trolling online publicly, or retracting his statement). He still refuses to do so. Even if I did troll his debate, which he cannot prove even on the balance of probabilities, why does that give him the right to commit slander?
My opponent accuses me of being psychotically oversensitive. I'm not really qualified to comment on my own mental condition, but this is for sure - you don't need to be oversensitive to find being labelled a troll a big issue. It is objectively big, as both of my definitions attest. Besides that, my own mental condition has no bearing on my opponent's action. If I was the most clinically insane person on Earth it wouldn't make calling me a troll any more valid. End of story. That's why the motion falls.
To start my argument out this round let me begin with a conversation on just what my ‘rights’ are and your rights larztheloser and the rights of anyone reading this debate or for that matter not reading this debate.
I have every ‘right’ to post a gut call that think you’re were the troll, I have every right to say you let your emotions override your better judgments when voting on one of my last debates causing to vote bomb against me. I have every right to say I think you are an idiot, oversensitive, psychotic. As far as my rights to freedom of speech goes I could post that I think you suffer from this http://en.wikipedia.org...
Having facts or data is not a prerequisite to enable my ‘rights’ to free speech. I simply have that right to start with I do not have to earn it. What I do NOT have an inherent right to is for people to take what I say seriously, my gut calls, without evidence. And that is better censorship mechanics than anything the government wants to enact with SOPA.
You seem to think it should stop me from posting something because there is no need of posting that particular something. If I applied that logic to everything I would never post I don’t even ‘need’ to be a member of this sight. It is my hope that one day we all will learn to do more than just what we have to do.
You seem to think it should stop me from posting because it personally offends you. If I applied that logic to everything I would never post because on this sight you are inevitably always going to be offending somebody. While I cant control whether or not you take rational due personal offense to something I post, I can control whether or not I pander to your sensitive ego, which is all that would be accomplished by ‘retracting’ my statements.
Sometimes I have gut notions about what might be going on, and even those gut notions can be wrong its still good for me to post them. This provides people who play the mafia games with me some background for knowing how seriously to take my ‘gut-calls’ in mafia games and what inevitably is a factor when they are wrong. Or even bases for seeing the ‘improvement’ of my gut calls overtime.
Anyway, not that we have dealt with this ridiculous inference that I lack the ‘rights’ to post anything I fancy at all, let us press on…
You still don’t understand the whole point of the ‘combining’ of the coincidences. You suggest that because they mean nothing apart they must logically mean nothing put together. That simply is not true, and not just with this debate but any topic of interest (particularly conspiracy theories). Standing close to a piece of art you may see nothing but the paint that means nothing by itself but step back and you will see the formation of the whole bigger pitcher. That is why I press on with making a point of not retracting any statements because that is what this whole debate is about. You have put me in a position to be defending the basic principal behind sniffing out any and all conspiracies out there.
It may mean nothing that the sound barrio was broke shortly after the ‘weather balloon crash’ in Roswell New Mexico, but it does start to mean something when you combine considering that with all the other numerous technological advances that happened right after that crash.
It may not mean anything when a single or a just a few individuals report they saw bigfoot, it does start to form a pattern though when almost half of the American population say they have seen bigfoot or know someone who has. Something’s going on with the UFO cases or the bigfoot sighting, what I will leave up to you for this debate is not on those specific topics, but basis of those kind of topics in general.
It matters to a rational mind when things, even if meaningless independently, form a pitcher together. A rational person should start forming a conspiracy theory in there head when they see a troll degrading a debate by excepting it at the same time as some other member attacking it as ‘warped and twisted’ in the comment section. A rational person would get even more suspicious when that conspiracy theory, being based on theorizing a member who does not want to be associated with the shame of troll killing a debate would secretly multi-account to troll kill, said suspect proves the first half of that theory right away, that he does not want to associated with troll killing a debate, so much even that he will not let one barely notable post that no big deal was being made about.
But like I said I admit I cant prove the second half of that theory nor can my opponent prove against it. Any ‘evidence’ provided for it would either be guesswork toward another mans psychology from soulless internet post or from just taking his word (not exactly rational and sometimes dangerous over the internet)
On a final note I would like to point out the self-righteous hypocrisy of my opponent if any of you reading this debate are emotionally feeling sorry for him wanting to be on his side at this point. While he says I should not be posting unnecessary things that could ‘offend’ him personally he had no problem himself personally insulting me calling my mind ‘warped’ a purely derogatory statement that HE SLANDERED ME with long before I even acknowledged his existence on this website. One of which he does not retract even now. He is in no position to be telling me or any of you what is or is not ‘nice’ to post or what we should or should not ‘retract’ and say ‘I take it back’. If for no other reason vote PRO this debate to show you do not pander to that kind of easily offended hypocrite on this website.
I thank my opponent for continuing his case. In this round I will deal with my opponent's arguments in reverse order, and summarise the debate.
My opponent claims that I slandered him first. Firstly, whether I did or not, this actually has no bearing at all on the motion at hand (which is about my opponent slandering me) and is completely irrelevant. Secondly, if you look back on the original comment, you will note that I did not call my opponent's mind warped, but rather said that you need a warped mind to take the debate (not instigate the debate). I never said the motion was irrational from the perspective of pro, but only that it made no sense from the perspective of con. Thirdly, even if it was directed at my opponent (a barefaced lie) then it still would not count as slander, which requires me to make baseless accusations. In fact, if you look back over the many comments I made on that debate, you will see that I had considerable grounds to believe my statement was true. The very fact that the debate was troll killed provides very strong evidence in support of my statement.
My opponent claims that conspiracies may be true because lots of people attest to them. Well, in Ancient Egypt, an awfully large quantity of people actually believed their king was a God. Same thing applies to the Incans, Aztecs, Romans (for a time) and most South-East Asian cultures, among others. That does not mean that all those rulers actually had any God-like powers. You can imagine, however, an ancient Egyptian philosopher going around saying - "It seems 99% of the population believes the Pharaoh has magical powers. Therefore it must be true!" It wasn't true then, and it isn't now. It doesn't matter one bit how many people believe in the yeti. What matters is whether they have seen the yeti - whether they actually have any basis to their claims. Then my opponent goes on to tell you what a "rational person" would start to think. I have already proven each of the thoughts my opponent lists here to be irrational, so I wonder why a rational person would start to think such irrational thoughts? That simply does not make sense. The final part of his 'conspiracy' argument was his claim that I cannot prove the contrary. It is not my burden to do so, it is irrelevant to the motion, and this was never about proof. This was questioning whether my opponent had any evidence (as opposed to proof) to support his accusation, which I have already established he didn't.
Finally, that my opponent has a "right" to slander. Interestingly he accuses me of vote bombing here, trying to undermine my character still further. A vote bomb is an unjustified vote. I encourage voters to actually look at the vote (here: http://www.debate.org...) and ask themselves if it had a justification or not, as my vote did include a reasoned and concise explanation of why I awarded it the way I did - more detailed than both of the other votes on that debate, which were both from experienced debaters! As with all of my votes, I am happy to send a longer justification with feedback to anybody who can be bothered reading it, if they simply ask. In my experience, however, 99% of the time debaters don't really care for a explanation that's sometimes longer than the debate itself, so I'm rarely bothered writing one unless asked. I would contest that calling me a vote bomber is just as slanderous as calling me a troll, and should be taken into account by voters when casting their conduct vote.
Will not upload ... Content that is unlawful ... defamatory ... harmful, hateful ... or violate any ... national ... law or regulation, or that is otherwise inappropriate.
Therefore, while having facts or reasonable cause for belief does not magically "enable" free speech, it does enable your ability to defame somebody (except that it wouldn't legally then be defamation, it would simply be posting something you have good cause to believe to be a fact). Before you go around posting defamatory comments about site members, you should be aware that you may well be committing slander. For instance, the phrase, "I think randomDDOuser1 is a mafia member" is not defamatory and so does not come under the definition of slander. "I think randomDDOuser1 is Asian" is not defamatory and so does not fall under the definition of slander. "I believe randomDDOuser1 is creating a dual account and stalking me" is probably slander, although it depends on whether you actually have any evidence to believe that. This isn't just for the purpose of pandering to randomDDOuser1's ego, but for the purposes of not bringing them to undue disrepute. Even if it was just for the purposes of pandering to randomDDOuser1's ego, why not do so when you don't even care? That's the question I posed last round which my opponent is still unable to answer.
With this, the debate for me comes to a close. I believe that I have shown three facts. The first is that my opponent has no basis for calling me a derogatory name. The second is that he called me a troll willingly, to a public audience. The third is that this meets the definition of slander, which is unjustifiable given the first and second facts. The conclusion from the above facts is as simple as it is obvious - Marauder should retract his statement. On top of this, I have also provided rebuttals to my opponent's case, even though it seemed like half of them weren't even connected to the motion. This issue is simple for DDO users. Do you want a website where people can say whatever lies they want about you, even if they have no sound reason to believe that those lies are true? I know that I don't. Vote con to keep DDO a safe place.
Marauder forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|