Slashdot Mirror
Data Mining Shows How Down-Voting Leads To Vicious Circle of Negative Feedback
KentuckyFC writes: "In behavioral psychology, the theory of operant conditioning is the notion that an individual's future behavior is determined by the punishments and rewards he or she has received in the past. It means that specific patterns of behavior can be induced by punishing unwanted actions while rewarding others. While the theory is more than 80 years old, it is hard at work in the 21st century in the form of up- and down-votes — or likes and dislikes — on social networks. But does this form of reward and punishment actually deter unwanted actions while encouraging good behavior? Now a new study of the way voting influences online behavior has revealed the answer. The conclusion: negative feedback leads to behavioral changes that are hugely detrimental to the community. Not only do authors of negatively-evaluated content contribute more but their future posts are of lower quality and are perceived by the community as such. What's more, these authors are more likely to evaluate fellow users negatively in future, creating a vicious circle of negative feedback. By contrast, positive feedback does not influence authors much at all. That's exactly the opposite of what operant conditioning theory predicts. The researchers have a better suggestion for social networks: 'Given that users who receive no feedback post less frequently, a potentially effective strategy could be to ignore undesired behavior and provide no feedback at all.' Would Slashdotters agree?"
This story sucks. :)
Let the game begin
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Don't feed the trolls?
********************
I object to Intellect without Discipline.
I look forward to observing the many ironic and humorous mods this topic will induce. In fact, the act of moderation itself may be the actual discussion more so than any of the content.
I would mod my own post as insightful troll, for example. I mean, this is just pandering, right?
In the category of "No shit, sherlock" research....
Don't feed the trolls. Thought this was fairly common knowledge...
Manuals are your last resort only
Negative mods
Are like shaving cuts
And come from those
With hairless butts
Burma Shave
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
The findings seem to be common sense. Or, as the saying goes, "Do not feed the trolls". Alternatively, the popular wisdom is, "Ignore them and they will go away." I have seen this in action on many forums. Debating a troll or a bad writer will just cause them to post more and more, they become more combative. Ignoring a troll or someone who is behaving badly and they usually pack up and go someone else to annoy other people. Postive feedback can encourage additional posting, at least that has been my experience.
I'd agree with not engaging them. At least not the trolls we have today.
But mod'ing them down? I like that. It means I don't have to wade through hundreds of trash messages to find anything worth reading.
And a clarification. "Troll" is NOT the same as "I have a different opinion".
Let's hope it can be replicated.
The behavior described in the study is expected. We've all seen the effects of giving trolls the attention they crave.
A more interesting study would be into the coupled nature of troller and trollee. Why are some incapable of ignoring negative provocateurs? We are told "Do not feed the trolls." But some cannot resist. Why are some incapable of letting the troll starve and vanish?
Elsewhere, it's not clear whom the negatively-rated posters are trying to impress — if anyone. More likely they're just trying to get something, anything, out on the interwebs, so that their visibility increases.
The ones I'm most familiar with (from running lists and web forums) are like the loudmouths in bars, with an opinion on everything, and almost all of it wrong; but it's not clear if this is the type of poster the researchers were dealing with.
That's the criticism, well maybe that's too strong a word... That's the critique I've had of Slashdot's moderating system. By allowing both up-votes and down-votes, you create a system where the voice of the majority can drown out the voice of the minority. I've often seen people here express the mistaken belief that if a minority viewpoint is introspective or informative, it will survive the unfair downvotes and rise to the top. It doesn't work that way.
The average ranking is not rank = up - down. It's rank = p1*up - p2*down. Where p1 is the size of the population which would rank it up, and p2 is the size of the population which would rank it down. A minority viewpoint consequently gets a disproportionate number of unfair downvotes simply because it's a minority viewpoint, and thus has to garner a lot more upvotes just to obtain an equal ranking to a majority viewpoint.
For an apolitical, non-religious example, consider Windows vs. Linux. Say Windows users outnumber Linux users 50:1. Now imagine if a search engine let you rate search results based on whether they were useful or not useful, which is then used to prioritize subsequent search results. In every population, there's going to be an idiot segment who votes stuff down simply because they don't like it, not because it was inaccurate or irrelevant it was to their query. Consequently, if a search for hard disk repartitioning brings up four Windows sites and one Linux site as the top results, the Linux site is going to have 50x as many downvotes from those idiot users who never specified Windows in their search but were upset that an "irrelevant" Linux site was included in the search results. If the idiot segment of the Windows population exceeds 2% (numerically equivalent to 100% of the Linux population), that Linux site will end up with a negative rating regardless of how useful or informative it is.
I say "criticism" is too strong a word because neither way is the "right" way to do it. They are just different. A moderating/ranking system which only allows upvotes simply generates different results from a moderating system which allows both upvotes and downvotes. Sometimes the former is more useful; sometimes the latter is more useful. The important thing is to understand the limitations of both and how it will bias the rankings, and not fall into the mistaken belief that a minority viewpoint has just as easy a time reaching +5 on Slashdot as a majority viewpoint. If a contrary viewpoint reaches +5 on Slashdot, it must be making a helluva good point.
authors of negatively-evaluated content contribute more
So if you want to increase the number of posts to your forum, down-vote everybody?
I guess this is the problem when people try to apply the psychology of the real-world to entirely made-up worlds, or forums. Places where nobody really has any idea about the true identity (or identities) of the participants - and where reputation counts for little: since anyone can "press the button" and start again with a new identity - placing a value of zero on their forum-persona's reputation.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
it's not uncommon for forums to record both up-votes and down-votes separately. While a lot of places - like slashdot - record only the arithmetic total (up-votes minus down-votes) there are places that do it properly - recognising that *any* vote can be considered a good thing. Just like in real life: the worst you can have is apathy.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I'm afraid that this article touches on what I perceive as a growing problem: it's the notion that "Everyone's answers and opinions are right and have value."
This might be fine in some areas where many things are subjective, in which case the axiom "there's no disputing taste" is appropriate. In these cases, then I agree that one should probably hold one's criticism.
But especially in the technical areas, such as computer programming and the physical sciences, the laws of physics and logic often times point to a more correct answer. In my own work, I find that I am constantly wading through massive amounts of literature, and wondering -- what the hell happened to peer review that used to weed much of the crap out? Eventually, wrong answers and half-baked opinions stack up to warp reality, such that it is difficult to find or promote the few rigorous and correct.
I think it's a similar situation on peer-reviewed sites like Stack Exchange. Often times, the posted opinions for solution to a problem run the freaking gamut. I am glad that a lot of the good opinions (based on sound reasoning and experience) are boosted up, but the dreck (based on fuzzy thinking, old wive's tales, and "antipatterns") are ranked downward, thus giving some help to an interested third party (such as me) who really doesn't have time to be patient and P.C.
Disclaimer: the right answer can be the minority opinion -- which may have been knocked hard by other reviewers. Here I am speaking about the 99% of the time that the best answer is the most highly rated.
Yes larger population could in theory tromp down a smaller one.
But generally a larger population is more complacent and less likely to do anything, where a smaller population is more vigorous.
I've voiced some unpopular opinions here. Yes sometimes I'm modded down. But pretty often I'm also modded up, so on average I feel the result is actually pretty fair - over time my voice is heard, despite blips of silence.
Read at -1 for a bit before you truly claim that down-moderation is not needed... or at least if not down, some people just need an off switch.
I think a combination of user moderation along with a handful of overseers that address the more egregious moderation abuses by the mobs, would be the way to go.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The prediction of operant conditioning predicts that positive reinforcement will increase behavior and negative reinforcement will reduce behavior. The report is not contesting operant conditioning it is only determining what sort of reinforcement the like and dislike function provide; reporting that the like function of these sites actually has little or no reinforcement and that the dislike function has a positive reinforcement toward unwanted behavior. This shows that it would be appropriate to say that there could be some debate on the meaning of like and dislike functions and what some appropriate alternatives may be.
- Corbett Dehring
In addition to this, I'd suggest that trolling can be likened to bullying in the sense that the negative response of the victimised party (or group) encourages continued trolling behaviour. And negative in this context is really about the negative feelings of the reader being communicated through the use of the like/dislike up/down vote.
Without that communication or feedback, the trolling/teasing/bullying behaviour has no reinforcement path, and the troll/bully moves on to greener pastures.
It probably makes a difference.
If "just anyone" can vote and there is no way to evaluate the quality of the voters, then the "wisdom of the crowd" may not be so wise and those who are "voted down" and whose goal is to maximize the number of voted-up posts may simply "route around it" by increasing the number of total posts, sacrificing quality along the way.
In the /. model, "votes" are scarce resources (5 moderation points every few weeks with a quick expiration), only usable for topics which you probably aren't "involved" in (if you comment while logged in, all of your related moderations are un-done), handed out only to those who have demonstrated some sustained level of "good conduct" (low karma = no mod points for you) and they are "watched over" by the community (meta-moderation). From the looks of things when I meta-moderate, Slashdot moderators are more likely to think before voting something up or down and as a result the "quality" of the "total vote" is likely to be higher.
As a result, if you take out the "inexperienced newcomers" and "immature commentators" whose first few posts happen to get down-voted and the trolls who don't care or who thrive on "-1 troll," most people will have the pleasure of seeing some of their posts "voted up" before the first or second time they see one get down-voted, and are therefore in a position to see what kinds of posts are likely to get them "good karma" and what kinds are likely to get "voted down." Since most "regulars" probably CARE about "good karma" for the perks it brings or at least they care about not being marked as "karma = -1," they will be motivated to not routinely post low-quality stuff.
Preparing to see my karma drop in 3...2...1...
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
People who are trying to get "negative" responses are not getting negative conditioning, they're getting what they want.
The trick is to give them feedback they don't want, not necessarily obviously "negative" feedback.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
I've never thought it was supposed to promote one kind of behavior or another. Upvote/Downvote is a means to improve signal/noise ratio, and make it possible for tens of thousands of people to communicate. It's a form of moderating, and frankly that's how it's always been. That's how slashdot was designed, and why we call it moderating, not "social conditioning". It works relatively well for what it's supposed to and certainly better than nothing at all (though I prefer reddits moderation system where there's not a limit of 5 to a post, and everyone can moderate all the time). I've never heard anyone express the idea it's a form of conditioning.
To me the idea that receiving attention (no matter if it's good or bad) is encouraging behavior, while being ignored discourages behavior isn't all that surprising. We're social creatures that evolved in groups of 150. Being "cast out" of the group is the ultimate in shame. People have used ignoring others as a form of punishment for a LONG time. Hell, that's what a kill list was for way back in the 90s on Usenet. That's exactly what the Amish do via shunning when they want to control peoples behaviour. It's the same with other social species like dogs as well. If your dog bites you for instance, the best thing to do is to ignore it for several days. Don't look at it, act like the dog doesn't exist. When it's time to feed the dog, have someone else from outside your house feed the dog. Dogs DO NOT want to be outside the pack. If you punish the dog, you're really just engaging it and playing a dominance game. If you simply ignore it and make the dog think it's no longer in the pack... it'll get the message. Being outside the pack= death. The same is true in human interaction as well.
AccountKiller
Oh, like Pharyngula.
Wow man. Sardaukar86's snow job of a post falls apart when you see how he really is from your post.
My thoughts are that posting in on-line communities is done mostly for reasons of self-esteem (although there are obviously other motivations) by people whose task is to share and receive useful-to-them information.
If your self-esteem is high, the post itself provides the validation and positive or negative comments have little to no effect on what you post since validation is intrinsic.
If your self-esteem is low, validation comes through feedback. Positive feedback is then seen to come from kindred souls and negative feedback from trolls. In both cases, validation is extrinsic and therefore has a volatile effect on the poster.
My problem with TFA is what they quantify as "better" content. People post using words, phrases and grammar that they come equipped with; their level of education is fixed for the most part; their real-life experience and socialization is essentially fixed for the short run. Their ideas and opinions are already formed. There will not be any substantial improvement in the quality of what people post, no matter what the feedback is.
Obviously, we need to fund more studies, especially studies done at exotic locales and funded by government money.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
The key is that not all feedback is directed at the author. As in the case of slashdot one of the biggest benefits of feedback is to clean out the cruft. Without this slashdot would be one big "make money fast, lose weight, and invest in Nigeria" forums.
Also the question isn't always one of looking at the authors as an average. I suspect that many authors are able to use any feedback quite nicely. If you read the comments on New Scientist (which I love) the comments are pretty much useless. But in some forums I learn great things. Slashdot has given me some real gems, an appreciation for Python, a better domain host, a better server host, and interesting product lines such as Arduino. But in obtaining these gems I have still had to wade through miles of religeous arguments of Java vs C++ and so on.
6 years ago I suggested that any negative mod should cost you 3 mod points.
/. should increase the maximum points a post can accumulate. Giving more "upside" to the discussion.
2 years ago I said On political threads, all comments should have the same rating.
Today I would add that maybe
I come here for the love
I will be so happy when this crap leads to the end of anonymous posting.
I suspect that is the reason we see so much more bad behavior veiled by anonymity these days... to destroy platforms that allow anonymous discourse, just as the big media companies pay people to pollute torrent sites with garbage. This feels coordinated, and it makes me happy.
Some day, we'll be able to go looking for trolls and physically assault them.
That will be a good day.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Social networks with upvotes but no downvotes end up dominated by fluff, spam, and douchiness.
By reading Bennett Haselton stories?
BAM! Nailed it!
On a less snarky note: I've tried a number of times over the years to google up the study that I'm pretty sure corresponds to the following assertion, and failed. (Sources welcome.)
Anyway, the (possibly imagined) study claimed that the best way to motivate people was to reward them *randomly*. In the same way that people in Vegas think they've just about figured out the system, random rewards *keep people trying*. Whereas constant positive/negative feedback becomes "the new normal", and ceases to motivate after a while. You can see this in celebrities and rich people, when they believe that their position in life is justified, and bitch about not having more success/fame/etc. And also in the chronically unlucky/downtrodden, when they accept their "fate" and eventually stop trying to move up.
It's not a theory, it's a known and well-researched consequence of direct democracy
Well then they need to do more research because I have been on Slashdot now for decades I think, and I'm telling you how THIS SYSTEM works. Anyone can judge quite simply and easily for themselves by reading a large number of articles at the -1 level and see how many good but against the grain posts are modded down, vs. sheer and utter crap that no-one wants to see.
Not to mention that just like every time a complaint about "direct democracy" is trotted out, it's invariably against a system that is not a direct democracy. Not everyone can moderate all the time, and the moderation frequency is itself moderated in mysterious ways by meta-moderation.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
But how many of those places don't have meta-moderation? Without it, mods are meaningless. Even with it, minority opinions struggle (since the majority of meta-moderators also disagree with the down-modded minority post).
Even worse are sites that lack meta-mod, but will ban you once you are down-modded to a certain level. Ars Technica comes to mind -- Ars forums are rapidly becoming a complete waste of time to read. If this isn't a gestapo-approach to a comment system, I don't know what is.
I come here for the love
There is one situation that doesn't follow your fairly elegant theory: when someone posts a minority view as an AC.
To avoid mod-stalker trolls, I've resorted to this on a considerable number of occasions.
What happens to the minority AC comments I've posted? 99% of the time absolutely nothing happens.
To me this shows that mod stalkers are the problem on slashdot. They won't want to waste a mod point on an AC, as it has no long term consequence. Put your user ID to something ten times more tame, and let the buzz bombing begin.
Hence my suggestion 6 years ago that down-mods take 3 mod points. This would use up troller mod points faster, so that reasonable modders could reverse "-1, disagree" mods, yet still have points left over for other up mods.
I come here for the love
It seems the down-mod still has some use, but the up-mod is preferred...how about if it just 'cost more' to mod-down posts?
nt
Slashdot needs IP shadow banning, so fucktards like APK can spin their wheels with their insane posts and the rest of us can get on with it. I don't know what's gotten into him lately, but practically every single story has a flood of stupid APK's stalker "LOL EAT UR WRODS FEEB" posts. It's starting to get out of hand. Hopefully he gets back on his meds and settles down soon.
APK, before you go on your usual "LOL @UR NOT A >> LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL SO U -> KANT KALL ME @KRAZY@" rant, I've got proof that I am and I can. Bitch.
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
FUCK YOU
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Everytime I come to slashdot rather than the rss feed I see "Karma: Bad" blazing near my name at the top. All because of my one and only comment on one story, which was on topic and I thought not bad. It made me not want to dig myself deeper and ever comment again.
The response has to come promptly --within a fraction of a second to a few seconds after the behavior -- for much of an effect from conditioning described by Skinner's work. Whatever they're tracking, it isn't likely to be Skinnerian operant conditioning.
If I were to make any single major addition to the current moderation system today, it would simply be: "You must post a comment before you may upvote or downvote any posts." Otherwise, aside from moderators being able to target and harass a single (or multiple) user's posts with downvotes with no restriction other than their point pool total, I think /. has a pretty decent moderation system going for it.
Works on World of Warcraft chat .. and presumably on Internet forums as well.
I think there's more to getting mod points than just karma. If you only log into /. every 2nd or 3rd day and only load stuff on "slashdot.org" a few dozen times each login, you'll probably get fewer moderation opportunities than if you pretty much stay logged in all the time, load slashdot.org hundreds or thousands of times a day, post dozens of comments a day with a fair amount of getting modded up, and 2-3 submissions a day with 1-2 accepted a week.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Thanks for all the mods, everyone! The moderation log message from the Slashdot backend system report was hilarious to read.
I wish the complete mod log were visible on the comment, in chronological order (Funny displaced by Flamebait displaced by Insightful, Troll, Interesting, and so it iterated). It really was a very amusing meta conversation.
Oh, poor baby. Little ol' APK just doesn't know how to make friends with anyone it seems..
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
So you have to do so, with logic/reason/facts
That's rich from you, APK, a nasty little crawler with only a tenuous grasp of the truth at the best of times.
You are a deceitful liar and a lowlife who accuses people of the duplicitous acts you yourself commit. You have no integrity, no honour, and no ability to argue a logical debate. Your attempts at 'arguments' are childish jabs at best, but the icing on the cake is that you not only think you're holding your corner, you actually believe you're doing so for Great Justice and that your lame wet-noodle literary sword is a fiery blade of righteousness. The word 'pathetic' was apparently developed with you in mind.
had to deal with cops yesterday in fact with a black gang I had to run off my property no less & THEY were crying to the cops when I was done with them, I got off., scot-free
Dude! You're so cool! I had no idea you were an Internet Tough Guy!
Don't let your modesty stop you getting through doorways now..
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
I'm pretty sure DocHoncho would object to being called my sockpuppet.
It's no surprise that you accuse me of such, because deceitful tactics and lying are your modus operandi so naturally you assume the same of others.
I am quite capable of standing alone against you and have done so successfully for years. I don't need to down-mod you, the community rightly does that, allowing me to spent my modpoints on something more worthwhile than your sorry arse. I don't need to sock-puppet, because there are plenty of people on Slashdot who feel the same about the ranty crap you spew here, and we can all see how bad you look when you (ineptly) try to use AC puppets to support your foolishness.
I don't need to lie to show you up for the arrogant, narcissistic little prick you are.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Face it, APK - you've got nothing.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
You have clearly demonstrated that you have no idea what proof is, nor what constitutes credible proof. You are a liar without integrity who cannot operate honestly and without deceit.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
You seem pretty sure of yourself, so let's have some evidence.
Oh and I've already called you out on that repetitive question-asking thing, go check my posting history if you want to reference my answer. Thus your repeat of the question in this post is little more than a puerile tactic and as such is to be ignored.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Repeatedly asking the same thing doesn't make you a good debater, nor does it make your argument for you, especially when the thoroughly-explored answers to this repeated question in my posting history are there for all to see.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Why are you avoiding my question here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?
Why are you avoiding mine?
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
No, it is you that avoided MY question. I asked for evidence as to why you are certain that DocHoncho is a sock-puppet of mine.
Understandably you evade because it's easier to make accusations than it is to back them up with evidence.
Put up or shut up, APK.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
You're apk obsessed. I'm not him.
APK, you are a liar.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Quite a rational response for someone who is sick of trolls interfering in the discussion. Trolls get told to fuck off all the time.
In this case, the troll was you, so naturally you don't agree with the outcome.
Interestingly, most adults at least understand another viewpoint, even if they don't agree with it. Not you. A pity you'll never mature, APK.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Why are you having such difficulty with reason, APK? The question you ask has been answered by yourself in the same sentence.
You already have the answer you want. Explain how I am avoiding your question or shut up.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
No, I did not interfere in your 'discussion' (pity you've such low standards you think you've had a 'discussion' with someone when they've merely replied once to your doggerel)
What I did was comment on your typical, 'Poor Me' whiny, snivelling complaint about being modded down. It had nothing to do with Trax's post.
You wouldn't need this explained to you if you weren't so clue-free.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
is that what you call rational discourse? That's trolling. You're in grave error. Rational discourse doesn't include profanity laden raving!
Another rhetorical question; are you going to spend the next couple of days squealing at me that I 'avoided your question' again? Or, have you taken a moment to read the definition of the word and won't show yourself up as a simpleton this time?
It seems you're still having difficulties so I'll explain it again for you: rational discourse is interrupted by stalking, lying trolls like yourself. Expect to get told to fuck off when you do so.
You may also expect to be told to fuck off when you complain about being modded down. You deserve each and every down-modding you get, so suck it up cupcake.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Are you really so thick you don't actually understand the meaning of the word 'stalking'?
How can you tell when APK doesn't know a word's meaning? Because he uses the word over and over again out of context.
You got what you deserved. Your whiny post was so feeble you need to be beaten unconscious for your puerility.
Instead, all you got was a single acidic post from me - now, all this time later you're still so butthurt you just can't stop stalking my posts. You poor little butt-hurt baby!
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
I've already told you that I don't need to mod you down, other people do that for me. Why would I waste my valuable mod points on a worthless piece of shit like you?
Oh, and go learn some math and statistics skills before you try it on with that stupid 244:1 stuff (otherwise known as "APK Won't Admit The Truth" and "Maths And Statistics Works Different When You're Trying To Avoid The Reality Of A Crushing Defeat")
Got an answer to that, APK? Or are you going to "Run, Forrest, Run" which would be hard with your foot in your mouth, alongside your words which are all washed down with the bitter taste of self-defeat?
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Face it APK, you are utterly defeated. All you have is stale copy-pasta and no argument to speak of.
Paste it again, cry-baby!
Just think, this time you might convince me! Loser.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
So you can't rebut me?
Oh look, more pasted repetitious crap, looks like APK is signalling his defeat for all the world to see. Loser.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Defeat me? Oh, this ought to be rich: show your working then, arrogant arsehole.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Exactly as I said before, You can't rebut me. Replying with the same non-argument is not a rebuttal.
So, as I observed before, you are conceding the point. Loser.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
But you wouldn't understand that, because you have no argument.
So, by all means, just repeat yourself.
Loser.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
..but is too embarrassed to admit it. So, like a three-year-old repeating the same phrase over and over again, APK posts the same non-argument again and again.
APK clearly concedes he has nothing. Loser.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?