Regarding Investigations

**OnceLost** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 10:36am

This thread is an attempt to improve the efficiency and uniformity of the investigations conducted by Bullshido members.

How much bullshit is too much? At what point, if ever, do we dismiss someone out of hand because they aren't actually contributing the the investigation in any meaningful way?

Case in point - the comba-tai thread. The poster Mantis origianlly appeared in 2005 to say that he didn't believe comba-tai existed. Over the the course of the investigation, he has changed sides either through legitimate conversion or because he was always a supporter of comba-tai seeking to 'undermine us from within.' For the past 2-3 months, he has promised to answer specific questions but has never actually done so. He has recently admitted that he has no knowledge of some claims (read the thread for details) and spent his time trying to attack the investigators (argument 10) and bring up issues irrelevant to the investigation.

Because that thread is in MABS, should a mod (who has no part in the investigation) remove the posts that are nothing more than fluff or should they stay?
If they are removed, it cleans up the thread and keeps things relevant to the investigation, but it also opens the door to the accusation that we (Bullshido community) are applying an unfair standard to our investigations. Reluctance to deal with that accusation (in this context) opens up the door for subjects of every investigation to do as much as they can to clutter up threads and distract from the investigation...

Another case in point - in a thread about an FMA grandmaster (http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=49928), several posters continuted to clutter the **** out of the thread without answering direct and rather simple evidence. Samuel Browning hit them with a temp ban (which I believe became a perma-ban because of duplicate accounts).

Essentially, should we let people **** up our investigations to appease the perception of fairness or should we apply a standard of "put up or shut up" in investigations? To what extent does leeway exist?

It might be obvious, but I believe that a third party mod (someone who has nothing to do with the investigation) should be the one to make the decision about specific posts and posters.

**kohadril** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 11:19am

Some part of me is deeply disturbed to be saying this, but I definitely prefer the "put up or shut up" approach. Repititious, irrelevant bullshit isn't useful, and I don't really care what the people who post that kind of thing end up thinking of us. It's not like we're banning them. There are problems: like what the criterion/criteria is/are for removing a post. There will be some subjectivity. It might be easier just to leave all the crap in the thread, but that would dilute the value of our investigative threads.

On another note, I'm very impressed by your dedication to developing our investigative and rhetorical standards, OnceLost.

**Tom Kagan** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 11:31am

The threads you mention were started before the impetus to clean up the MABS sub-forum was decided. The mods are actually in a rather lively debate as to how to best handle the older mega-threads which are still active like those and a few others. The key is to avoid such pitfalls you point out.

**OnceLost** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 11:35am

Thank you, Kohadril. If we're going to do something as important as debunking bullshit, we should do it right, eh?

I agree with the 'put up or shut up' approach in certain situations. You make a good point - the person is not going to get banned, so they could still contribute useful information (if they have any).

I'd appreciate some input from mods here, too - would it put too much responsibility on a moderator to determine what posts should be removed without necessarily having them 'reported?'

What criteria could we implement to be an fair and impartial as possible?

**OnceLost** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 11:42am

Thanks, Tom - I didn't realize that. Is there a consensus or accepted criteria for posts that are irrelevant to the investigator but not necessarily to the subject? Will all of the posts deemed irrelevant be saved to another thread (YMAS or Trollshido) so they can later if referenced if they do become relevant (or if the poster complains that he included critical information in a post that was deleted)?

I don't mean "LOL PENIS" posts, but posts such as this one:

Indeed? I will argue against your childish antics to destroy a man based on your Adolescents research. This is not a put down, but you know I’m right…so say what you want. Stop the preaching ... you haven't provided any evidence against Comba-Tai or Dr. Jones. But tonight, I will provide evidence against you. I didn’t want to go their, but you asked for it. Want to see it, here it goes.

That post doesn't contribute anything to the investigation. The poster, on the other hand, could argue that he was trying to comply with Bullshido standards by calling into question certain evidence and promising to deliver information at a later time.

PS - I don't mean to harp on the comba-tai thing, that's just the latest thread that I can easily pull examples from.

EDIT - Tom answered part of my question in another thread. I've copied his answer below.

Originally Posted by Tom Kagan

No posts are to be deleted or edited. I and the other moderators of MABS are to move posts and whole threads to other sub-forums. No discussions are to be locked down, either.

No exceptions.

**Kintanon** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 1:25pm

My suggestion is that a thread bearing the same name of the original thread preceded by the words "CRAP CULLED FROM" should be created in the Trollshido and any post not directly relevant to the subject be dumped there. A note can be created at the beginning of the thread saying, "Irrelevant posts have been moved to Thread Name. If you would like to see what's missing, go there." With a link. Then nothing is actually being deleted, but the investigation thread isn't all cluttered up by stupidity.

**OnceLost** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 1:28pm

I think that's a good idea, Kintanon. It makes it an easy reference for anyone interested. A link to the original should be in the firs tpost of Crap Culled From thread and vice versa. What do you think, Tom?

**Iscariot** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 1:37pm

I tend to disagree on this example. The Comba Tai thread was started, then died. Resurrected, died and turned into a rottie thread by yours truly. Then the **** hit the fan as Mantis resurrected the thread again.

Such posts should really stay, removing them would make it look like he's just returned to the investigation with more information, rather than a dead and reused thread being dragged back to life by someone with an agenda.

**Kintanon** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 1:45pm

Locking the thread after a certain amount of inanity with no new valid information would be a useful tool there. If 6 months down the road someone comes back with new information after not having any useful posts for that time span they can start a new thread called '"Crap I was talking about before: UPDATE", and link to their old thread.

**OnceLost** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 2:00pm

I agree with part of that, but the purpose of that thread was to investigate comba-tai, not expose Mantis' agenda. Or Don's, for that matter (irony intended), which is why I believe some of that should be put into a "Crap Culled From Comba-tai" thread.

Maybe that wasn't the best example - take any of the investigation threads where someone has crapped it up with posts that they could (and will) argue were actually relevant.

Tom said the mods are talking about this very issue, so I'm not sure how redundant this thread is...(a little guidance from above, please).