Thursday, January 23, 2014

On trolling and Catallaxy Files

Re my last post on my stoush with Sinclair Davidson over his stagflation call of 2011, Sinc has now decided to permanently ban me from the Catallaxy Files blog. His stated reasoning follows:
So yesterday I placed m0nty in auto-moderation so he couldn't continue to derail an otherwise interesting thread while I was out and about. During that time he posted this:
... where I spend a bit of time trolling the various Christianists, libertarians and other wingnut denizens. While admittedly I get away with a lot ...
making it clear that he doesn’t come here to argue and/or debate but rather simply to troll and derail threads. I can think of no good reason why someone who has no intention of making any sort of useful contribution should participate in our discussions. As such I have moved him from auto-moderation to the banned list.
No doubt like others (Bird, Homer and TonyN) he will continue to follow the threads but he will only be able to participate in discussions by writing at his own blog.
Of course Sinc has the right to ban me, the Cat is a private blog. This is not a freedom of speech issue, since I am perfectly free to post here and elsewhere. I ban people from my own site on a regular basis when they are consistently anti-social.

Where I will push back, however, is this notion he is pushing that the reasoning behind the ban is purely because he does not want trolls at the Cat, due to some noble goal of engendering useful discussion. The Cat is full of trolls! The Cat has a page about trolls! It states:
It all boils down to this: every so often you have to shoot a troll, the better to encourage the others. It’s fun!
Sinclair banned me not for some higher motivation, but purely because I had him by the short and curlies on his stupid stagflation call. I could call him names over this, but I'm more interested in the consequences of his actions on the Cat. The effect of his policy will be that the remaining trolls on his site will all be on his side, all agreeing with each other, in a boring echo chamber. I had thought the Cat was a more interesting site than that.

The last word belongs to Steve from Brisbane:


  1. You big fat idiot. You could have toned it down, but finesse isn't one of your virtues, is it. In fact you don't have any virtues.

    Look who you're going to associate with now. Homer Paxton and Stepford.

  2. JC, if being at the Cat requires finesse, then it's not worth being at the Cat. You are going to be bored shitless over there now. You've already admitted that.

  3. and you twittered regarding this as well.

    my god, what a huge ego you have, may I ask
    why ya ego is so huge? how do you see yourself?

    what a funny little man.

  4. you actually think that the cat will be worse of without you?

    why is it all about you?

    Dont ever bend over.

  5. Not me specifically, anontroll, but all lefties. Aristogeiton gets it in that thread. Go argue with him about it if you want.

    1. no lefties, thats great.

      it is all about you though, wanna meet and talk about it?

  6. "You are going to be bored shitless over there now. You've already admitted that."

    No I didn't. Stop lying.

    Go eat some humble donuts and apologize to Sinc. Maybe I'll talk to him about getting you back on. Any chance of writing up a full apology and having it as a guest post at the Cat.

    Would you do that, monst as I think it would work.

  7. My tablet work gets noticed. yay.

    Sinclair's banning/moderation decisions have long been erratic, played favourites, and seems solely dependent on the side of the bed he got out of that morning.

    Yobbo ripped into Steve Kates the other week (saying things that I am pretty sure a few other regulars think but are not prepared to say) and got a mere "oh, so you're cranky today" response.

    But as I explained when I did my self banishment, I can't tolerate the lack of overall moderation of the place any more. I have a theory that Sinclair might consider the blog threads are a sort of "test" of how libertarian communities might self moderate - if someone says something outrageous and offensive, then others might try to pull them in line and a certain natural level of acceptable propriety prevail.

    In fact, this happens exceptionally rarely, so that the blog threads have become full of sexist and (for want of a better word) "homophobic" comments which, if I overheard in a pub, would offend me and make me slide away from the group. And when they get onto racism issues it can get exceptionally ugly, and pretty dumb.

    As I have said over the years, it particularly annoys me when the women who comment there let offensive comments slide (IT and his twice made comment now that a woman deserves a "kick in the slats", for example.) And that Sinclair, despite his presumed friendship with Tim Wilson, rarely does a thing about the way homosexuality is used for the purpose of ridicule.

    Sorry, but blog moderation that extends to "no one uses the 'c' word, and if I notice something I think is a bit OTT I might delete it" has made the place too ugly to be seen in.

  8. Any chance of writing up a full apology and having it as a guest post at the Cat.

    Would you do that, monst as I think it would work.

    LOL JC, that's not happening. I don't have to apologise for anything.

    1. good, one less utter cunt to have to bypass.

      christ, you look like a pig.

  9. Stepford

    You need to get your head around the fact that the climate models don't work and that you're soon going to be re-assessed for the disability pension you're pulling. Focus on that stuff.

  10. Tell the truth, JC: I don't think you much care for the way the threads work now either. Only the other day you were asking why so many threads end up carrying on about gays, gay marriage (and I would add, abortion....)

  11. By the way, it is amusing how your inventions about me (that I sprained my little finger and have been on disability pension ever since) has a ready audience of people who think it is true.

    Says a fair bit about the gullibility of the other commenters, I think.

  12. Hey monty: dot seems to be arguing in today's open thread that stagflation is already here. (!)

    It seems that any movement up in CPI and unemployment, no matter of what size, is "stagflation" for him.

  13. For a low low price of only $175, you too can subscribe to the Shadowstats newsletter which tells you that CPI is an Alinskyist sham and U-3 is a communist plot.

    Dot is a lost cause.

  14. Mark Hill is an inherent liar.

    I am willing to bet he provided no evidence. Given that inflation fell after Sinclair's prediction he is toast so to speak.

    Sinclair banned Steve C when Steve showed up Sinclair's mathematical abilities.

    The ban on M0nty is simply a compete joke.

    He deleted comments of mine after I told him top man up and say there had been a structural break in rising world temperatures. Now he only infers this.

    There is only one reason why!
    He is a serial hypocrite

  15. The Fin is getting in on the act today as well. I have blogged about that.