* * * JREF Forum Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Calling someone 'troll' is attacking their arguments Started at 4th June 2010 12:03 PM by Dorian Gray Visit at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=177271 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Dorian Gray Date : 4th June 2010 12:03 PM Thread Title : Calling someone 'troll' is attacking their arguments In my opinion, calling someone 'troll' is attacking their argument or message, similar to calling someone a racist or sexist because of comments they made. What is the internet definition of troll? An internet user who sends inflammatory or provocative messages designed to elicit negative responses or start a flame war. The definition itself attacks the argument (i.e., 'messages'), and this can usually be completely substantiated. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Tricky Date : 4th June 2010 12:29 PM Note: I recently gave an infraction for a post that called another member a "troll" and did little else. I say this not to attack the legitimacy of the previous post or to denigrate the poster, but since this is the "complaints" section, it ought to be clear what the complaint is for. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Dancing David Date : 4th June 2010 09:48 PM It is not attacking the basis of their argument however. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Dave Rogers Date : 4th June 2010 10:45 PM In my opinion, calling someone 'troll' is attacking their argument or message, similar to calling someone a racist or sexist because of comments they made. I disagree. Consider the difference between describing someone as a liar, and describing someone's statement as a lie. In the first instance you are characterising the person, which is the very definition of the ad hominem fallacy. In the second, even if you're not attacking the basis of the argument, you are at least addressing the argument and not the arguer. Therefore, I would argue that "Your post is a blatant attempt at trolling" is a legitimate, though weak, response, whereas "You are a blatant troll" is not. Dave -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : jsfisher Date : 5th June 2010 09:53 AM I disagree. Consider the difference between describing someone as a liar, and describing someone's statement as a lie. In the first instance you are characterising the person, which is the very definition of the ad hominem fallacy. In the second, even if you're not attacking the basis of the argument, you are at least addressing the argument and not the arguer. Therefore, I would argue that "Your post is a blatant attempt at trolling" is a legitimate, though weak, response, whereas "You are a blatant troll" is not. Dave Labeling someone a liar is an ad hominem, but not necessarily a fallacy. It is also not necessarily inappropriate. In cases where someone has repeatedly demonstrated a pattern of lying, it becomes a legitimate argument to discount the person's statements. "You have proven yourself to be a liar by ... and ... and .... Why should we take anything you say seriously?" On the surface, calling someone a troll should fall into the same category. Not good as just a bare accusation or overplayed, but fine as a supported claim of poor behavior that undermines credibility. Unfortunately, we seem to have great difficulty coming up with a good operational definition of troll. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Thunder Date : 6th June 2010 07:11 AM Racists make racist remarks. Trolls post trolling posts. And yet, it is an infraction to call someone a racist. Food for thought. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Tricky Date : 6th June 2010 07:17 AM Racists make racist remarks. Trolls post trolling posts. And yet, it is an infraction to call someone a racist. Food for thought. No it is not an infraction to call someone a racist. It is an infraction to do so without addressing their argument and making it clear what it is about them that you consider makes them a racist. This is pretty much the case with almost all kinds of insults here. There are certain exceptions, but "racist" is not one of them. However, it usually adds nothing to the discussion, so if you can find a better way to describe your feelings about a person without stooping to crude insults, you are usually better off. Assuming what you want to do is discuss things rationally. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : carlitos Date : 6th June 2010 08:27 AM I was the infraction Tricky refers to above. That particular poster previously stated that they only post here to get a rise out of people. He started a thread entitled "The best site for 911 research." In that thread, he said "I do not study 9/11, I study you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5898025#post5898025)." I took him at his word. He followed up with this qualification: Actually it's not true I have no interest in the subject at hand, but rather I use as a guide the responses I get here as important part of determining the value of each particular Truther(TM) claim. I have over the years in Holocaust denial developed a rather sensitive textual analysis software package that can detect certain patterns and motifs which give a very precise guide as to the collective emotional state of the Illuminati to each particular sub-thesis. Again, taking him at his word, he's messing with us. Trolling. I honestly feel that it's a public service to point this out; however, I broke the rule, so my bad. Just to be clear, even though this is posted in "complaints," I'm not complaining. Mods have enough to do without me whining. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Meadmaker Date : 8th June 2010 09:32 PM No it is not an infraction to call someone a racist. It is an infraction to do so without addressing their argument and making it clear what it is about them that you consider makes them a racist. This is pretty much the case with almost all kinds of insults here. There are certain exceptions, but "racist" is not one of them. However, it usually adds nothing to the discussion, so if you can find a better way to describe your feelings about a person without stooping to crude insults, you are usually better off. Assuming what you want to do is discuss things rationally. But in practice, it is almost impossible to say that someone is a racist and not get an infraction. If any moderator fails to read the post and/or the context of the post to make a judgement about whether or not the comment was reasonable, it gets infracted. Some moderator sees "you're a ....." and immediately declares it an attack on the arguer. I got an infraction when I called Marc39 a racist in this post: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4804027&postcount=144 (This was the issue that made me consider the late appeal I mentioned in the other thread. I didn't notice the infraction when it occurred. I decided not to appeal. It wouldn't make me happy.) Marc39 had made several posts in which he described things that "Arabs" do. Just prior to my post above, he had said "Arabs have an uncontrollable desire to see dead Jews." All of those comments are racist. I could have tried to address each of the individual comments and the racist elements of each one, but that would miss the point. I, and others, had already been doing that in the thread. The point was that all of those arguments (if a bare assertion can be called an "argument") had one thing in common. They came from a common arguer. That particular arguer was a racist, and his racism was causing him to make unfounded and inaccurate assertions on a regular basis. I decided to address the real problem, which was the arguer. I tried to be fairly nice about it. I tried to make a specific suggestion about how he could do something to not be so racist, by not referring to what "Arabs" want, but limiting it to the actual Arabs in question instead of all Arabs. I don't think my comments were particularly inflammatory, or a crude insult. In other words, sometimes the arguer really is the root cause of the problem with the argument, but calling it out will require saying, "you're ....." and someone with a greater grasp of grammar than of meaning will decide that it's a violation of the rules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Foolmewunz Date : 10th June 2010 10:06 AM I cannot recall, but I'm pretty sure I've called out racists as racists and not gotten an infraction. I definitely recall referring to someone as a bigot in a thread recently where I got no infraction. Both parties, I believe, were admitted nazi symps or white supremacists, though. That could well be the difference. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : rjh01 Date : 10th June 2010 10:31 AM I cannot recall, but I'm pretty sure I've called out racists as racists and not gotten an infraction. I definitely recall referring to someone as a bigot in a thread recently where I got no infraction. Both parties, I believe, were admitted nazi symps or white supremacists, though. That could well be the difference. Another difference is the fact that we have about 12 mods. I cannot see how they would all be 100% consistent in such things. The passage of time would also be relevant. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Meadmaker Date : 10th June 2010 12:49 PM After further consideration, I decided to appeal after all, and I'm pleased to say that the infraction was reversed. I suppose the moral of the story is that if you are going to make an argument that is personal, which includes any comment at all about the person involved instead of what he said, someone might consider it a personal attack, and if that someone is a mod, it might get infracted. However, if you can put together a decent expanation of why a personal comment was warranted in that particular situation, it is likely that the mods will see it your way in the end. To put it slightly diffierently, I stand by my assertion that sometimes the arguer really can be the issue, but when you say that, it might not be obvious to everyone why you think that, and you might have to spend some time justifying your position. This is based on a thorough study of one data point. All in all, I think the mod team does a pretty good job here. I have occasional complaints, but the fact is that I am here because there is intelligent conversation available. That's not an easy thing to achieve on the internet. If they didn't do their jobs at least moderately (no pun intended) well, it would descend into the same level of stupidity found in most internet forums. ETA: I also figured out something about the OP. I see his point. When the accusation is trolling, or, equivalently, "you're a troll", the arguer and argument are even more intertwined than accusations of racism. The charge being made is that the argument is being put forward by an arguer who has motivations not related to the argument itself. He might not even believe the argument. In other words, if I say, "You are trolling." what I mean is that you don't even care about the argument that you are making. The statement about someone being a troll carries within it an attack against the argument. A charge of being a racist may or may not do the same, but an accusation of trolling always does. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : GeeMack Date : 10th June 2010 01:16 PM After further consideration, I decided to appeal after all, and I'm pleased to say that the infraction was reversed. I suppose the moral of the story is that if you are going to make an argument that is personal, which includes any comment at all about the person involved instead of what he said, someone might consider it a personal attack, and if that someone is a mod, it might get infracted. However, if you can put together a decent expanation of why a personal comment was warranted in that particular situation, it is likely possible that the mods will see it your way in the end. Fixed your error. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from JREF Forum (http://forums.randi.org) at 13th June 2010 11:17 PM.