Trolling

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:56 pm

I don't want to be a hall monitor about this, but more than that, I don't want the discourse to degenerate from lack of attention. Members should be assured that they can post without inviting personal attacks and hounding across threads. Registered users who persist in this will be reminded of the policy, but unregistered users may find themselves banned without further warning.

by **Dreams End** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 12:31 am

I don't really mind THAT much, but I think it turns new people off when they come here. Also, I think we have a guy here who started out acting in this manner but seems now to be participating in a very welcome way. Sorry you even had to deal with that.

by **proldic** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 11:16 am

Could you guys be more explicit about what this is all about. Please try to clarify this. Examples? Did something get removed from the board? Who did Dreamsend tattle on? Do we now include snideness, "ad hominem", sarcasm, and name-calling within the context of an argument? I've re-read my old posts, and I don't see how I was disrupting anything. Sarcastic and angry, but not disruptive. Or is this just about the obscure surfing insults?

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 11:54 am

proldic, my post wasn't directed to you. I think lots of different voices, and tones - including snide, sarcastic and angry - need to be welcome. I'm not expecting people to be on their best behaviour, I'm asking that they refrain from verbal abuse. I'd prefer not to call out people with specific examples. I know that makes it rather impossible to know what I'm talking about, and I apologize for that. I'm still sorting this out, and I'm uncomfortable being the one who has to draw a line and say this crosses it. When I think something does, I'll try to deal with it privately.

by **Dreams End** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 12:12 pm

I never said anything to Jeff about any poster whatsoever. I don't even know if anything Jeff mentioned was specifically about me. I did get annoyed when you followed me to another thread and made a little snide comment one time (the thread where a poster asked about the "Forum") where I shared that my mother had gotten involved with them and you hopped in just to say, 'That explains a lot' suggesting this was what was "wrong" with me. Anyway, I simply stopped conversing with you. However, you've had a lot of very substantive posts on this site. I'd recommend against hopping onto other threads just to make a snide comment directed at someone personally (especially involving their mother(!), but I only think that happened once. However, since you are registered and have not received a warning from Jeff, obviously he's not talking about you. I posted here in reference to an unregistered, anonymous poster, who seemed to have some issue with me personally on one thread and then another anonymous poster kind of attacked me elsewhere. I don't even know if they were the same person and I don't even know that Jeff was looking at my case in the first place. However, either way, I know that when I go to a discussion board and see lots of personal attacks and namecalling, I tend not to want to become part of that community and to make assumptions about the maturity level there. That's why I was glad Jeff intervened. I can handle attacks against me just fine (it IS just a bulletin board, after all) but it is discouraging to "newbies." I assume Jeff can ban by IP number, so if anyone is hopping on anonymously or under different names just to make trouble, it's just a mouseclick or two to wish them godspeed on their journey elsewhere!

by **proldic** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 1:20 pm

Hold on - I wasn't thinking that Jeff was talking about me in his original post, but I did feel that your (DE) comment about me was wrong. One poster actually got away unchallenged claiming my posts were "violent hate-filled rhetoric". Oh, and let's not forget the response "..now they've set the real professionals on us..". I wonder if there's any consensus on this. My point would be simply that we ought to be aware that we can ALSO shut good people out with too much orthodoxy, or strict "rules of good behaviour". You almost turned me off posting here in the beginning for that reason, for example. I can't find it right now, but I'm guessing my thing about your Mom being involved in an EST-spin off explaining what I perceived as your bias in favor of the "new age" movement was in response to your positing that my having a friend that was a survivor of "new-age" RA explained my bias against it. Which would be annoying to you, sure, but I don't see it as necessarily out of place. You brought your Mom to the board, not me, and I don't think that it's too out-of-the-ballpark to posit that it might have something to do w/ your views, just like you pointing out that my having friends with the opposite experiences has to do w/ my views. " I'd recommend against hopping onto other threads just to make a snide comment directed at someone personally..." I'm wondering how much we would want to take that advice 24-7. C'mon, DE, I'm sure you don't want it to be ALL about polite high-tea academic discourse. That's no fun. Sometimes a little vitriol can be helpful. It's the cold, reserved, and dispassionate ones w/ no "fire in the belly" at all that I'm really worried about. Remember, once they're done "drilling down to facts", sometimes even Nerds are reduced to insults. What about any cultural context? Under what I sense as your "guidelines", DE, most of the folks in my neighborhood would be excluded from participating. To me, it depends if it is in context with a substantive disagreement between the parties, and how much it disrupts the thread. If the poster feels it reveals hypocricy, or a bias, I would think it would be perfectly fair to jump threads for a jab, as long as it doesn't disrupt it completely. Another lesson is that a person's viewing of their remarks quoted "out of context" may be another person's perfect example. My claiming that RR's views on inner-city public schools was motivated by thinly-veiled racism, for example. Or, recently I snipped quotes of people, and placed them in a seperate thread to illuminate a line of thinking that I see as very real and very dangerous. I can see how the original posters would see it as "out of context", but I don't. Also, it's worth noting that there was some discussion between folks about how the discourse should be conducted at that time, and there were different opinions if I remember correctly. OK, now go ahead and rip me up DE. Love, P-dic

by **Dreams End** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 1:52 pm

with another conversation between us. Just a couple of things: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What about any cultural context? Under what I sense as your "guidelines", DE, most of the folks in my neighborhood would be excluded from participating. <hr></blockquote> I didn't say anything about "excluding" anyone. It was a recommendation. Lots of readers don't check out every post, so bringing one issue over from another thread, especially without explanation, is confusing and might, without the context, look petty. Of course, that's sort of what I'm doing now...sigh. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I can't find it right now, but I'm guessing my thing about your Mom being involved in an EST-spin off explaining what I perceived as your bias in favor of the "new age" movement was in response to your positing that my having a friend that was a survivor of "new-age" RA explained my bias against it.<hr></blockquote> First, and I want to be really clear here, when you mentioned your experiences with a friend who was an RA survivor, I don't remember my exact words, but I see how you interpreted them and how they could be interpreted in that way. In fact, I don't know how you could possibly have interpreted it the way I meant it as I think I just didn't sayit well at all. So let me correct the record: Sheesh, proldic, I didn't know you had this background with your friend. A lot of this intellectual banter seems kind of insignificant now, as I see you are coming at this from a deeply personal perspective. I don't want to be seen as invalidating that experience, as so many RA survivors like your friend get WAAAAY too much of that. I may still not agree with everything you are saying here, but I acknowledge that you aren't simply trying to "score points" and have a very genuine concern about this issue. It really is what I meant...but it sure didnt' come out that way. Not meaning it sarcastically, I didn't get your Forum point...and you didn't explain it, so certainly no one else on that thead would have. Anyway, I apologize...the original comment was supposed to suggest I understood the magnitude of your experiences. Finally, proldic, unless Jeff has contacted you privately, I'm not sure why you see a need to defend past posts. He said this wasn't directed at you...and so did I.

by **proldic** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 2:30 pm

Um, because YOU brought ME up, like "well, let's not be too strict, because there's a guy here who was misbehaivin', but he's behaivin' now". Just because I have a softer approach now, don't assume that I agree with you that what I was doing before was "trolling". And that's what you were implying. The reason I brought it up was not simply to clarify that mistake, it was also because I think it's a very important point to discuss. And it's not just going on here on RI. All over on the left, a sort of PC-enforced politeness groupthink is stifling "ideologically-based" (read Marxist), heretical, and dissident opinions (like the "gatekeepers" debate), and discouraging questioning of leaders and prominent voices (such as yourself on this board). Just search how they are passing all sorts of laws to make it so you can sue folks on the internet for "libel" easy, or making what was once constitutionally-protected free speech criticism of public officials like strongly-worder letters-to-the editor into "violent hate-filled rhetoric", and laws making it illegal and arresting people for swearing or talking loud at town meetings, and you'd see my concern. You may not be advocating actually "excluding" anyone, but I'd point out that you did say that you stopped communicating with me due to my "annoying you" with what you portrayed as my troll-like behaviour. That tends to have the effect of excluding people like my neighbors, who on the whole tend to be more acerbic and bitter, but still have a lot to offer. And they're not here yet, btw. So, do we agree that jumping posts for a little jab, even if not everyone else gets it, however annoying, is NOT trolling?

by **Dreams End** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 3:32 pm

I'm sorry I got this started on this thread. If you want to move the parts that have become a conversation to another thread, please feel free. "more thoughts on trolling" or something. proldic, I'm sorry I excluded your neighbors by not responding to you when you annoyed me by calling me elitist and stuff. can we move one now?

by **proldic** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 4:03 pm

"Jeff - 'I'm sorry I got this started on this thread'." If you feel the need to apologize to anyone, what about apologizing to me for gratuitously and unnecessarily linking me to "trolling"? Not that I need it, but that's what started this. "proldic, I'm sorry I excluded your neighbors by not responding to you when you annoyed me by calling me elitist and stuff. can we move one now?" That's snotty - you're not sorry at all. You are obviously twisting the intent of my words, while ignoring my overall point. No wonder someone's pissed at you. I can understand their visceral reaction to your "style". Maybe you should consider reigning in your sophistry a bit. But I wouldn't call it trolling, or try to ban it. And to think I used to use the word "troll" to mean someone who just observes w/o commenting. Toughlove, P-Dic

by **Asta** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 4:09 pm

from getting involved in forums, it's that sarcasm does not translate well over the internet. I don't know why that is. The same potential misunderstandings dwell in emails. Perhaps there's something about the fonts or the coldness of the screen or whatever, but I've had so many experiences of being totally misunderstood, that I rarely post and I never send personal, chatty emails to friends and relatives anymore. I call them on the phone and even that has its shortcomings. The best way to communicate is face to face. Sometimes reading a post outloud before hitting the "add reply" button can help weed out those verbal pitfalls.

by **Dreams End** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 4:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>If you feel the need to apologize to anyone, what about apologizing to me for gratuitously and unnecessarily linking me to "trolling"?<hr></blockquote> prol, I gave you a sincere and heartfelt apology up above. I explained that I thought your forum post was "trolling" though I didn't use the word, before I understood how you had taken my comment about you and your RA survivor friend and that your other little "dig" was actually a response to that. Here, I'll print it again: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>First, and I want to be really clear here, when you mentioned your experiences with a friend who was an RA survivor, I don't remember my exact words, but I see how you interpreted them and how they could be interpreted in that way. In fact, I don't know how you could possibly have interpreted it the way I meant it as I think I just didn't sayit well at all. So let me correct the record: Sheesh, proldic, I didn't know you had this background with your friend. A lot of this intellectual banter seems kind of insignificant now, as I see you are coming at this from a deeply personal perspective. I don't want to be seen as invalidating that experience, as so many RA survivors like your friend get WAAAAY too much of that. I may still not agree with everything you are saying here, but I acknowledge that you aren't simply trying to "score points" and have a very genuine concern about this issue. It really is what I meant...but it sure didnt' come out that way. Not meaning it sarcastically, I didn't get your Forum point...and you didn't explain it, so certainly no one else on that thead would have. Anyway, I apologize...the original comment was supposed to suggest I understood the magnitude of your experiences. (emphasis added) <hr></blockquote> That's going to be it for my discussion with you on this, or probably any other matter. And rest assured, you have some strange, exaggerated sense of my importance on this bulletin board. But it is not correct. Just because I find you too difficult to talk to will not mean that somehow, magically, no one else will talk to you. You continue to make excellent and interesting posts...but you and I are simply not going to get along.

by **Avalon** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 8:18 pm

I'm still sorting this out, and I'm uncomfortable being the one who has to draw a line and say this crosses it. When I think something does, I'll try to deal with it privately. Sorry, that goes with the territory of having a bulletin board. You'll have to get used to it. You can't please all the posters all the time, and you'll make decisions that piss some people off. Some of them will leave. You get to choose which decisions to enforce, and thus which posters get disinclined to get involved with the conversation. And if somebody goes over the line and you only deal with it privately, it will happen again if only because people clearly don't understand where the line is. There are zero rights to "free" speech on a private bulletin board. And I put "free" in quotes because when you forbid spamming, advertising, harrassment of other posters, libel, lies, and personal attacks (as any sensible board owners will if they want coherent conversation), there's always going to be some American who hollers about wanting his free speech, as if that's what the Constitution says. Which it doesn't.

by **mother** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:57 pm

what exactly is "trolling"? I am new to the Internet, and I assume it is a negative activity. And while I'm at it, what the heck is this LOL thing?? I am kind of a medievalist...I finally got a driver's license 3 years ago, this kind of thing. Thanks so much for all the interesting points of view.

by **Ted the dog** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:17 pm

Mother- LOL is "laugh out loud". trolling is usually referring to people that intentionally try to piss other posters off. this can be done a number of ways, but usually it's accomplished through just acting like a jerk, plain and simple...or creating multiple ID's with the intent to say one thing under one name and something all together different under another....stuff like that. general harassment. the problem is, sometimes people that are maybe angry or sarcastic, yet have good intentions, get pegged as trolls. hope that helps!

Trolling

Trolling

Thanks

Honest Question

Re: Honest Question

trolling

C'mon, no mother jokes allowed? That's my best ammo!

I don't want to hijack this thread

"I'm not sure why you see a need to defend past posts.&

Jeff

Dreams End

If there's anything I've learned

my final post on this topic

Rights and responsibilities

Please explain....

...

Who is online