[Discussion]---Coberst

[Coyote]

Lately, a youngling by the name of coberst has been a regular feature in the SLAM forums. I have not seen his li'l e-feetprints elsewhere. He has posted what appear to be random thought experiments out of a cognitive sciences book to no discernable reason.

The latest in a series...

Artifacts

What do you think?

Now, in a way, some of this stuff may actually be interesting and provoke some discussion, but at the same time his presentation is, in a word, flaccid at best. While, as best I can see he has not truly violated any rules per se, he is a bandwidth sink.

I am thinking, perhaps, the title "retarded spambot". We have one, may as well make it a series.

Commets, criticisms?

[Spyder]

Let's see,

Retarded monologues, thread spam, posting history that looks as though it would fail a Turing test. I'd say this was a textbook retarded spambot.

Motion seconded.

[Lord Poe]

Oh please. Flush this turd and be done with it.

[Spyder]

Maybe it's morbid curiosity on my part, but I'd like to see it circle the bowl a few times to see what else he comes up with.

We don't get too many pomobabblers here, I'd like to know if they bleed.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I second spyder. Let's give the little thing a chance to realize he's merrily circling his way out onto very thin ice before we send him for the final ride.

[CmdrWilkens]

Moreover he hasn't, as pointed out, truly violated any posting rules so its hard to have a case for him to be sent out the door until tripping voer the rules. If its just a matter of being stupid with his first few posts I'd honestly say that any measure can wait. I've said it before that we are far too quick to jump on the newbies and slam them when a couple sharp whacks with flamespewing posts will do the trick to correct their posting. Lets give this sucker a week or so before we really even move on it just to see if the good old "friendly reminder" tactic works better than the stuff and flush.

[Connor MacLeod]

Usually we just mock stupidity until he breaks rules. If it annoys someone major (like Mike) I'm sure they (he) can do somthing appropriate about it before we need to.

Edit: In other news, any of the old SBers (like Phongn or Mad or Publius) remember rvalencia? Any of you getting a similar vibe off coberst?

[Edi]

Title him. Not enough grounds for ban yet.

It should be noted that one of the board rules is that the rules themselves are not a straightjacket that can be used to tie the hands of the staff because something has specifically not been mentioned. And the same rule states that if somebody tries that, he is likely to find the rules shoved up his backside with an appropriate instrument.

[Darth Wong]

In the most recent thread, clear evidence has been posted that not only is he copying and pasting all of his posts, but he is also failing to acknowledge that he is doing so.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The only thing saving him from a ban at this point is the fact that the only person he's plagiarising is himself.

[fgalkin]

I was inclined to be more lenient, but after reading his exchange with Stark, I say, "Kill the spambot." Or at least title it.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Does anyone want to use him to experiment with a double-vote system for handing out punishments? We simultaneously start two polling threads, one asking whether or not he's guilty and one asking what kind of punishment he should get if he is. A majority to convict, and the punishment with the most support in the other thread is automatically implemented.

[phongn]

Edit: In other news, any of the old SBers (like Phongn or Mad or Publius) remember rvalencia? Any of you getting a similar vibe off coberst?

Arg! You just had to remind me of the Trekbot!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Edit: In other news, any of the old SBers (like Phongn or Mad or Publius) remember rvalencia? Any of you getting a similar vibe off coberst?

Arg! You just had to remind me of the Trekbot!

Goddamnit, why did you have to reply? I was ignoring Connor's post and hoping it would go away.

[Mad]

Edit: In other news, any of the old SBers (like Phongn or Mad or Publius) remember rvalencia? Any of you getting a similar vibe off coberst?

After reading a bit, yeah, to a point. For the uninformed: rvalencia would post excerpts from Star Trek scripts as evidence, but would rarely state how he figured those excerpts applied to the discussion. It's like he had a point but was unable to express it properly. A running joke was that he was an AI. The fact that he constantly misrepresented Darksaber, refused to defend those assertions, and then would later repeat the same assertions in another thread only reinforced that joke. (He also had poor grammar and spelling, though not as bad as some we've had here at SDN.)

coberst is similar: instead of Star Trek scripts, he's copy-and-pasting pre-written material that he believes best addresses the post he's replying to. The ultimate source of this material is currently unknown.

His "debates" seem to consist almost entirely of pre-written material for all his main points. That's ironic for someone claiming to be seeking "understanding." If he truly understood, then he would debate his opponents properly and be able to impart that understanding to others.

At this point, a title of "Retarded Spambot" seems to work, at least for now. I can easily see him break DR4 and 7 soon, if he hasn't already, as well as DR5. Of course, the Senate isn't the Department of Pre-Crime, but we can at least warn him.

[fgalkin]

Hell, I remember rvalencia, the goddamn spambot.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Coyote]

In this exchange, he does indeed begin to tempt fate:

I generally do not respond directly to insults because it only leads to mud wresteling and I am too old to enjoy those forms of fun.

In response, there are the following directives:

DR-4:
Do not use someone's rudeness as an excuse to ignore his points.

DR-7:
If you dismiss an argument because of its use of profanity, you can be instantly banned.

We can probably begin final phase operations if it is deemed necessary by the majority.

coberst, if you are reading this-- and I hope you are being cognisant of the goings-on here-- I am actually hoping that sometime soon you drop the silly cut-n-paste and contribute directly. But, if you insist otherwise...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Not responding to insults is not the same as ignoring someone's argument because of them. It's still a titling issue to me, though we have plenty of grounds to go ahead and start up the punishment thread(s).

[Mad]

In this exchange, he does indeed begin to tempt fate:

I generally do not respond directly to insults because it only leads to mud wresteling and I am too old to enjoy those forms of fun.

In response, there are the following directives:

DR-4:
Do not use someone's rudeness as an excuse to ignore his points.

DR-7:
If you dismiss an argument because of its use of profanity, you can be instantly banned.

We can probably begin final phase operations if it is deemed necessary by the majority.

In that post, however, he did attempt a reply. I'd prefer to see some evidence where he actually does ignore the points presented in a post because of its perceived rudeness.

We should also keep in mind that he most likely will not have time to reply to everything (though he did paint himself into that corner with his huge volume of posts). Human error should be factored in a bit.

Fortunately, we should be able to tell soon enough if he's showing a trend of ignoring valid points or even blatantly refusing to respond.

[Publius]

Usually we just mock stupidity until he breaks rules. If it annoys someone major (like Mike) I'm sure they (he) can do somthing appropriate about it before we need to.

Edit: In other news, any of the old SBers (like Phongn or Mad or Publius) remember rvalencia? Any of you getting a similar vibe off coberst?

Didn't you make rvalencia curse?

Regarding coberst, his behavior is tiresome at best, but not really so objectionable as to merit a banning. An unflattering title seems appropriate, perhaps with a clear warning from a moderator or administrator. He seems to be more of a nuisance than a miscreant.

[Kuja]

VI him and be done.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

He continues to copy and past his posts and is ignoring everyone who is pointing it out. He's competely worthless, ban him.

[Surlethe]

Let's title him, and if he keeps up the non-contribution, ban him then. I don't think we should be too quick to jump to the banstick, if only to keep people around to mock (wasn't there a Senate thread a little bit ago about this?).

[Hotfoot]

I don't like him. After doing a quick google search and finding his form letters all over the damn internet, and finding out that he even goes so far as to have RE-RUNS, I find myself seeing this turn into a predictable tale.

Still, just trying to bring up the same subject on different boards is not itself a crime, as I'm sure a fair number of people here have taken discussions across multiple forums to see the variation in the responses. The way he is doing it annoys the everloving shit out of me, but the act itself is not ban-worthy.

I say give him a chance to actually contribute more things of substance, and if that fails, title him or ban him depending on the severity of his unwillingness to contribute in meaningful discussion. I sincerely doubt he will change his ways, but I'd rather be fair in the meting out of punishments than try to convict him on something he hasn't strictly done yet.

Naturally, if ya'll want to title him now, I'm not going to get in a tizzy and stand in the way as there is a precedent, but banning should certainly wait until he seriously fucks up

[Frank Hipper]

Isn't what he's doing a form of spam?