There’s a disagreement between dvdjsph and GeoffDann on the Second Renaissance forums regarding bad faith communication. Identify all instances of bad faith communication that have taken place on the forum over the last year. https://forum.secondrenaissance.net/
I can’t prove anyone’s inner intent. So I’m treating “bad faith communication” as observable communication that fits bad-faith markers: strawmanning, motive-attribution, refusal to update, disrespect, avoiding clarification/evidence, overstated consensus, and polarization. That matches the “Signs of Bad Faith Communication” list Geoff himself quoted on the forum. (Second Renaissance Forum)
Bottom line
I found no conclusive evidence that dvdjsph was arguing in bad faith. I found several clear instances of bad-faith-style communication by GeoffDann, mostly where he converts disagreement, requests for burden-of-proof clarification, or non-acceptance of 2PC/NED into claims of dishonesty, bad faith, relativism, or failure to understand. I also found one relevant instance by Justin, and a few borderline/combative but not clearly bad-faith moments by dvdjsph and others.
Clear instances
1. GeoffDann — May 26, 2026 — treating a request for evidence as bad faith.
In the NED/2PC thread, dvdjsph asks for verifiable evidence and raises a peer-reviewed astronomy anomaly as potentially relevant to Geoff’s no-alien-life prediction. Geoff first says “nobody has tried to debunk 2PC,” then treats the question as if dvdjsph were claiming the Fermi Paradox is solved or that aliens were definitively detected. He then says, “You are now arguing in bad faith,” and later repeats, “Again, you are arguing in bad faith.” The bad-faith element is not merely that he disagrees; it is the combination of mischaracterizing the objection, dismissing a request for evidential engagement, and attributing bad faith rather than answering the narrowed question. (Second Renaissance Forum)
2. GeoffDann — May 26, 2026 — “If you had a better objection…” motive diagnosis.
In the same exchange, Geoff writes: “PLEASE STOP ARGUING IN BAD FAITH. The very fact that you are doing so is revealing. If you had a better objection to 2PC, you would not be arguing in bad faith.” This is a stronger instance because it explicitly infers motive from the perceived weakness of an argument. A weak objection can be mistaken, confused, or badly framed; it does not by itself establish bad faith. (Second Renaissance Forum)
3. GeoffDann — May 27, 2026 — false attribution followed by “lying” and “bad faith.”
In the “broken relationship with Truth” thread, Geoff claims dvdjsph rejected 2PC on the grounds that “the Fermi Paradox isn’t real” because of “aliens in the 50s,” and also claims dvdjsph did not post the full AI analysis. dvdjsph denies both and links to the analysis. Geoff then says, “Now you are lying. Straight up lying,” followed shortly by “Stop lying. Stop arguing in bad faith.” This is one of the clearest instances: the record shows dvdjsph contesting the attribution, while Geoff escalates to accusations of lying rather than first repairing the disputed characterization. (Second Renaissance Forum)
4. GeoffDann — May 29, 2026 — imputing a motive “to mislead.”
In the “New Epistemic Deal: Praeternatural Phenomena” thread, dvdjsph asks whether mainstream scientific opinion is Geoff’s standard for legitimacy, after Geoff uses mainstream scientific non-acceptance to dismiss parapsychology. Geoff responds that the question is “loaded, ambiguous and misleading,” then says dvdjsph is “quite deliberately ‘not understanding’ things” and that “the motive is to mislead, misrepresent, and generally confuse the discussion.” That is a direct attribution of deceptive motive where the immediate question had a visible basis in Geoff’s prior appeal to scientific consensus. (Second Renaissance Forum)
5. GeoffDann — May 29, 2026 — doubling down with “guilty as charged.”
When dvdjsph explains the connection—“You literally just used mainstream consensus of scientists as a basis…”—Geoff replies: “AGAIN: Please stop the bad faith communication… you are guilty as charged,” then lists signs of bad faith. This again treats a clarification request as deliberate misrepresentation rather than addressing the apparent tension in Geoff’s own standard. (Second Renaissance Forum)
6. GeoffDann — June 1, 2026 — “relentless bad faith communication.”
In the later “Truth” thread, Geoff says dvdjsph posted a “misleading AI comparison,” ignored the “legitimate analysis,” and asks him to stop “relentless bad faith communication.” He then adds, “First I note that you are using AI to generate direct responses, instead of thinking for yourself.” The bad-faith-style move here is poisoning the well: using AI is treated as evidence of not thinking, while Geoff himself also uses AI outputs when they support his framing. (Second Renaissance Forum)
7. GeoffDann — June 1, 2026 — “You have made no attempt to understand 2PC.”
Geoff says dvdjsph has made “no attempt to understand 2PC” and has “literally done nothing else but attempt to find ways to reject it,” then labels the reply “More bad faith communication.” This is overbroad and contradicted by the surrounding record, where dvdjsph is actively distinguishing falsification, rival explanations, physicalism, fallibilism, and relativism. The move again collapses disagreement into bad motive. (Second Renaissance Forum)
8. GeoffDann — June 2, 2026 — accusing dvdjsph of “persistent bad faith communication” after a procedural reset.
In “A proposal for clarifying the real disagreement here,” dvdjsph proposes slowing the argument down by distinguishing claim types, burdens of proof, and standards of engagement. Geoff answers that the diagnosis is “completely wrong” and that the real problem is “persistent bad faith communication by you.” The follow-up analysis in that same post accurately identifies the deeper pattern: Geoff treats non-acceptance of 2PC/NED as evidence of failure to understand, bad faith, or postmodern avoidance. (Second Renaissance Forum)
9. Justin — May 31, 2026 — framing inconsistency as bad faith, contradiction, or memory loss.
In the free-will thread, Justin says Geoff’s position is “either two people with the same name debating, bad faith communication or serious self-contradiction and/or memory loss,” then suggests “deliberate obfuscation and disagreeability.” This is also bad-faith-style communication: it frames the disagreement through a set of largely negative personal explanations rather than first isolating the alleged contradiction. (Second Renaissance Forum)
Borderline or combative, but not enough to classify as bad faith
dvdjsph’s “diatribe / wall of text” opening was dismissive and likely escalatory, but the posted analysis notes that dvdjsph later acknowledged the bad opening, clarified belief in objective truth, conceded points, and tried to bridge the disagreement. I would call this poor tone, not demonstrated bad faith. (Second Renaissance Forum)
dvdjsph’s “you make yourself both defendant and judge” / “closed loop” language is sharp and adversarial, but it is a behavioral critique tied to the argument’s structure: Geoff claims 2PC is metaphysics when challenged by scientific standards but also claims it resolves scientific problems. That can be debated, but it is not obviously bad faith. (Second Renaissance Forum)
Geoff’s earlier contemptuous language about postmodernism—“slimy postmodern doubletalk,” “toxic nonsense,” “pomo bs,” “Nice try though”—is not necessarily bad faith by itself, but it is disrespectful and poisoning-the-well language. It helps explain why later disagreement is easily recoded as hostility or bad faith. (Second Renaissance Forum)
Overall finding
The forum record shows a repeated pattern: GeoffDann often interprets non-acceptance, narrowing questions, AI-assisted critique, or requests for evidential standards as bad faith, evasion, relativism, or failure to understand. That pattern itself is the strongest substantiated instance of bad-faith communication in the dispute. The strongest counter-evidence against dvdjsph acting in bad faith is that he repeatedly asks for definitions, evidence standards, falsifiability criteria, and specific claim-type distinctions rather than simply refusing engagement.