View previous topic | View next topic

Trolling should be treated the same way as spam

Page 2 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

bemahan
934497.  Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:52 am Reply with quote

I think I followed those rules, but then I am pathetically rules-bound.

 
exnihilo
934500.  Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:12 am Reply with quote

Unsurprisingly, I agree with all of what Neo has said on this thread. I don't think we should be rushing to ban people because one man's troll is not another's. It's entirely possible to talk round these people if you want to engage with another user, how many of us just skim or ignore bobwilson's rants for example?

As stated, trolls do tend to stick to their threads and it's easy enough to ignore those if you want to, like I ignore plenty of the chatty threads, but if you do feel like arguing - and, yes, MinervaMoon, some people do like an argument, so what? - then you can. Simply calling him a troll achieves nothing, indeed it's what he wants, because in addition to his list of quotes of praise he maintains one of insults that some of us will no doubt be on when he moves on to his next haunt.

If, on the other hand, he'd started vomiting Bible verses all over multiple threads then that would be spam, he's basically selling his version of religion, and he should be banned just as if he were posting links to vacuum cleaners all over the place. He didn't, though, where he posted in other threads he stuck to the spirit of them and kept his religious stuff for the religious thread he created.

I particularly agree about looking foolish when you come back to a thread you said you were leaving. Ahem.

Oh, and Job 39:5 is a corker, which I have also made a note of for the future.


Last edited by exnihilo on Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:48 am; edited 1 time in total

 
Strawberry
934501.  Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:17 am Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
For the record, being a nutcase is not the same as being a troll.

I think we've also had our share of nutcases, such as the flat earthers, that guy that thought Islam was the best thing since sliced bread (though sliced bread actually came much later), and others, and I don't think these people were trolls, they need to be dealt differently.

If it was someone simply posting to give their religious views, however bizzare, it would have been irritating, but this guy stepped over the line into trolling.


No, i wouldn't say that ifti (the guy who thought that Islam was the best thing since sliced bread) was a troll but he did seem like a spammer.

 
Neotenic
934531.  Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:27 am Reply with quote

Ifti was a difficult one - very much a borderline case.

I do think it fitted more closely with the definition of spam because only rarely would he specifically engage with any further discussion on the points he raised, and it was clear he was more interested in SEO for his 'school', so he did have a commercial interest.

That and the fact he was an out-and-out racist didn't exactly help his case, either.

 
PDR
934538.  Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:43 am Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:

We're all adults here, at least those who post regularly,


I'm not.

PDR

 
Alfred E Neuman
934547.  Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:06 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
Alfred E Neuman wrote:

We're all adults here, at least those who post regularly,


I'm not.

PDR


Could you at least provide references instead of wading in with unsubstantiated allegations like that?

 
PDR
934550.  Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:13 am Reply with quote

Oh yeah - another forum-stassi attempt to enforce a "Support or withdraw your assertion" restriction on my freedom of speech!

"I hold these things to be self-evident", to paraphrase the Maastrict Declaration.

PDR

 
MinervaMoon
934591.  Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:19 am Reply with quote

exnihilo wrote:
and, yes, MinervaMoon, some people do like an argument, so what?

"So what"? So it's stupid and counterproductive, that's what.

 
PDR
934595.  Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:32 am Reply with quote

MinervaMoon wrote:
exnihilo wrote:
and, yes, MinervaMoon, some people do like an argument, so what?

"So what"? So it's stupid and counterproductive, that's what.


No it isn't!

PDR

 
Neotenic
934599.  Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:29 am Reply with quote

I don't think arguments are counterproductive in the slightest - and they are, on the whole, much healthier than everyone sitting around in furious agreement with each other.

Time after time - and this seems to me to be particularly apparent in the fringes of American politics - if you are looking for people who believe completely dingbat things, then the chances are they are people who've never really sat down and talked with the people they disagree with.

And, indeed, the more you dehumanise the people who you disagree with (by lumping them all into the 'troll' category) for example, the easier it is to justify saying truly, or even doing, truly abhorrent things against them.

A pointless argument, to me, would be something like whether TNG is better than DS9 - because they're both shit.

 
Oceans Edge
934601.  Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:44 am Reply with quote

it's not about disagreeing with someone's opinion - and I wouldn't call someone I disagreed with a 'troll' - but there is a fairly well established definition of an internet troll - I don't think that's 'dehumanizing them' anymore than calling a spammer a spammer is dehumanizing them.

I'm all for argument, debate, discussion - I have no problem going toe to toe with someone who disagrees with me, however, that's NOT what was going on there. This was a person who's admitted purpose was to come in and poke the forum with a pointy stick - there was no discussion or argument or debate there was only shouty noise in our faces.

Now I can appreciate that, honestly if you want to have a bit of fun playing cat with a mouse with him that's all well and good - I'd just like to be able to participate in the more rational discussion that was happening in that thread without having to wade through pages and pages of dreck (average 14+ posts per day!).

I have no problem with a banning someone who's only intent is to be disruptive - once he stated that was his intention I'm happy to see his arse to the curb. But then it's not my say - if people think his presence is of some value to the forum - fine - just give me a way to turn off his noise and you can play with him all you like.

The attitude of 'just ignore him' is a fine one - can I please have a tool to do so?

 
Spud McLaren
934603.  Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:53 am Reply with quote

I'm merely slightly bemused - and amused - by his style Anybody who strides onto the stage bellowing
"FEEL MY WRATH"
and then lets fly with a resounding
plink
(which, let's face it, is about the size of anyone's capabilities on an internet forum), is merely letting himself be made into an object of ridicule.

 
CB27
934607.  Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:17 am Reply with quote

TBH, if it was his posts coming in a thread and making silly comments, they're easy to ignore, he problem with the thread in question was that there were so many people reacting to him that it buried other conversations completely.

One thing is to have a couple of side remarks here and there, I do it all the time, but when you have to go through 2-3 pages of posts from various people reacting to a troll so that you can get to the discussion you were following, that's when you feel like giving up, and that's a shame.

The irony is that some of the same people who say on this thread "just ignore them" are the same people who reacted to the troll and added to the plethora of posts that sidelined any conversation.

When I wrote "Fuck off troll", did I think he/she would would take my advice? Absolutely not, I was simply calling them out publicly because I know from previous personal experience and observation that when such people are called out then other posters stop responding to them.

 
MinervaMoon
934612.  Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:57 am Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
I don't think arguments are counterproductive in the slightest - and they are, on the whole, much healthier than everyone sitting around in furious agreement with each other.

What I meant was that arguing with a troll is an exercise in futility. What is the purpose: To change his mind, get him to stop posting? (That won't work.) To show how prepossessed you are and eloquent you can make your arguments? (Seems rather self-serving, like Federer playing tennis off a brick wall.) To practice your argumentative skills? (We call this "feeding the troll".) Why not just back off? Getting you riled up is precisely the response he is looking for, yet as enlightened a forum we purport to be, we haven't mastered the art of calmly walking away.

I have nothing against a good argument with people who aren't there simply for the purpose of making you angry. Look at the title of this thread. It relates to trolls only, not well-intentioned posters.

As for TNG vs. DS9 -- blasphemy. (It's obviously DS9.)

 
PDR
934613.  Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:59 am Reply with quote

Neither can hold a candle to Babylon 5, so the question is a non-sequiter.

PDR

 

Page 2 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group