The New Group Policy. Effective immediately.

 

Well, it seems long, long ago that one member of the Oxfraud group thanked me for allowing them to participate in the Edward de Vere was Shakespeare Facebook group. Looooong ago. He was surprisingly open about the fact that other groups refused to allow them in.

He even repeated his appreciation once or twice more when he worried that I might be reconsidering my decision in light of their behavior. It is no secret that the 'Frauds are short on class and long on clash.

Here we are, a couple of years later, and such appreciation would come off as pretty ridiculous. Most of the dismissiveness of the 'Frauds for any persons outside of the Stratfordian circle has resoundingly fallen on me so I have not been all that much concerned. In fact, various data seemed clearly to indicate that the members enjoyed the show. I am more than able to turn their blather around on themselves. My success encouraged more than a few others to try their hand at it with varying degrees of success.

The 'Frauds have displayed a willingness, from time to time, to actually participate in legitimate debate. They are able to engage in valid debate. They've done a modest amount of reading in Tudor and Shakespeare topics. Debate practice helps members, here, hone their skills and increase their knowledge base. Group members check-in more often in order to catch up on the latest posts and twists and turns. Everyone gains from these moments.

Once the 'Frauds lose a point or two, however, "clash" tactics can go over the line into trolling. Like Vladimir Putin's army, they are not particularly adept at engagement in accordance with the recognized Geneva Conventions so they abandon them and bomb the landscape to ruble with their huge stockpile of troll tactics and blame the other side for making them do it.

So first they declare that their point carried the day. They know this with perfect certainty because they plug the information into the inscrutable 'Fraud Truth Table:

Absolutely True	Utterly False
Anything that suggests the Stratford man.	Anything that suggests against the Stratford man.

Thus they need never concede. Theirs is a perfect certainty. They repeat their point more and more vociferously trying to make authoritarian faces. Then the bombardment begins.

The 'Frauds have recently been losing rather famously (which, of course, they utterly deny). This has driven them back to the trolling behavior addressed here numerous times in the past. In fact, they have ratcheted it up furiously of late to overwhelm those losses with a fire hose of derision and condescension. They are regularly threatening to go nuclear if they are not allowed to win.

From my perspective, the more specious their comments the clearer is their growing desperation. But I have the context of having read nearly all that they have posted on the Edward de Vere was Shakespeare Group and Virtual Grub Street properties and elsewhere. Other members don't and can't be expected to share that perspective.

The 'Frauds throw every insult, accusation and libel at me for the most obvious reason. I am their nemesis.

Even though the 'Frauds do moderate their tactics when debating others in the group, for fear of being thrown out, the more effective or persistent those members the less they moderate. Another category of member likely just wants to share a group identity protected from competing identity groups. They likely identify with those who debate the Stratfordians, Nevill-ians, North-ians, Bacon-ians, Countess of Pembroke-ians, etc., all of which are invited to have a reasonable say, here, but fail to have the natural armor that would protect them in the melee they imagine themselves sharing. Some even attempt what they imagine. In either event, the melee wounds, offends, infuriates, frightens them.

This all leaves me as Administrator with a potentially intractable problem. The Stratfordians — furious with their losses — have, of late, abandoned the Geneva Conventions in favor of trolling. The other members have every right to find this offensive. 

If I can develop no third option, I must either: 1) block the 'Frauds from the group and the group can continue by posting the occasional listless comment that gets a Like emoticon or two; or 2) allow the 'Frauds to remain and the group to go on as at present, and hope for enough breaks in the bombardment, somehow, to do some actual debating and sharing of interesting information and to satisfy the other members.

Um... So then, third option it must be. The 'Frauds must be helped to debate without lapsing into trollish behavior — or eventually be despaired of and released. Okay, we all know that this is akin to teaching the bilge rats on a garbage skow to sing Handel's Messiah. But what's to be done?

Below is a list of 21 of the most common 'Fraud troll tactics. Beginning immediately, items 1-11 can be sufficient cause for warning or suspension. I choose which and I choose how long. I promise no consistency. While the same is true of 12-21, I suspect that warnings will be more frequent and suspensions less and shorter.

I ask any member of the group against whom these tactics are being used to activate my name-link (“Edward de Vere was Shakespeare,” etc) in the comment box following the infraction(s). I will see that I've been hailed and will review the situation as soon as my schedule will allow.

So here's the list of infractions (subject to change as needed in order to best accomplish the goal):

1. Engaging in ad hominem attack.

2. Engaging in tag-team tactics.

3. Engaging in semantics / bafflegab / Gish Gallop and little else.

4. Replying to the argument(s) of others by reducing the matter to semantics / bafflegab and/or by flooding it with a firehose of disarticulate contention.

5. Supporting semantics / bafflegab / Gish Gallop with claims of superior credentials.

6. Putting words in opponent's mouth: “You have admitted...” [followed by a ridiculously convenient misrepresentation]? “Not having replied to my assertion you admit you cannot refute it.”

7. Practicing Shakespeare Authorship “law” like a street hustler practices three-card monte.

8. Demanding levels of evidence to which the member does not hold themself.

9. Making claims of superior credentials which invalidate opponents' facts.

10. Making ipse dixit pronouncements.

11. Supporting ipse dixit pronouncements with claims of superior credentials.

12. Asserting ipse dixit pronouncements and/or bafflegab and/or Gish Gallop are conceded because an opponent has not wasted their time refuting them.

13. Giving out homework assignments to one's opponents.

14. Providing no citation(s) with link and applicable quote.

15. Claiming “I have already explained this.” Or “I've already proved this to be true/false [so many times]” without restating purported proof or providing link to the purported previous proof(s).

16. Asserting false equivalence / invalid analogy.

17. Engaging in one or more non-sequitur(s).

18. Engaging in any of various bait and switch tactics.

19. Using the term “strawman” where it does not apply.

20. Alleging motivations to others, claiming they make valid comments or arguments invalid.

21. Employing variations upon the devastating old Middle School retort: “I am rubber, you are glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!”

I encourage all of the members to debate vigorously and to share information. I like to think that, when we do as much, Edward de Vere was Shakespeare is a remarkable group.

To the 'Frauds, in particular: learn how to think of debates and debating points in other terms than winning and losing. If we suss out a correct answer together everybody wins. If you can't manage it, learn how to lose with honesty, dignity and grace.

Also, forget about accusing others in the group of infractions. Except Dennis McCarthy, anyway.

This policy update goes into effect immediately.

Also at Virtual Grub Street:

• Rocco Bonetti's Blackfriars Fencing School and Lord Hunsdon's Water Pipe. August 12, 2023. “... the tenement late in the tenure of John Lyllie gentleman & nowe in the tenure of the said Rocho Bonetti...”

• On Shakespeare's lameness and historical-fiction biography, etc. August 5, 2023. “Those who support Sogliardo of Stratford and other authorship candidates generally stop by from time to time to remark...”

• Shakespeare CSI: Sir Thomas More, Hand-D. April 22, 2023. “What a glory to have an actual hand-written manuscript from the greatest English writer of all time!”
• Robert Greene and the Construction Shakespeare (Almost) Never Used. August 9, 2022. 'Our first foray “staring intently into” the texts of Robert Greene has noted that his work utilized far fewer feminine endings than Shakespeare’s.'

• A 1572 Oxford Letter and the Player’s Speech in Hamlet. August 11, 2020. “The player’s speech has been a source of consternation among Shakespeare scholars for above 200 years.  Why was Aeneas’ tale chosen as the subject?”

• Check out the Shakespeare Authorship Article Index for many more articles and reviews about this fascinating time and about the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
• Check out the Letters Index: Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford for many letters from this fascinating time, some related to the Shakespeare Authorship Question.