* * * JREF Forum Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : I still think we need an anti-trolling rule. Started at 6th May 2010 10:31 PM by BenBurch Visit at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=174928 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : BenBurch Date : 6th May 2010 10:31 PM Thread Title : I still think we need an anti-trolling rule. Does there come a point where trolling is in and of itself a violation of Rule 0? Some really egregious trolls appear here from time to time, they never post sources, they say ridiculous things, and they derail any and every topic they touch with utter stupidity. And its really hard to stay within Rule 12 with these guys. Sometimes I just need to walk away. And I know I am not the only one who feels like that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Professor Yaffle Date : 6th May 2010 10:35 PM If you can come up with a good working definition for trolling that can distinguish it from other posts, it would be looked at. However lots of people have tried and failed to do this. Good luck! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : deep Date : 6th May 2010 11:21 PM Some really egregious trolls appear here from time to time, they never post sources, they say ridiculous things, and they derail any and every topic they touch with utter stupidity. If they are derailing a thread with off-topic posts, then they're already breaking an existing rule - report them. Otherwise, just put them on your ignore list. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : remirol Date : 6th May 2010 11:39 PM Any anti-trolling rule could be too effectively used to silence all opposing viewpoints, thereby turning the JREF from a debate forum into a cathedral of skeptics all "praying" together. I am against any such rule. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Dave Rogers Date : 6th May 2010 11:46 PM Does there come a point where trolling is in and of itself a violation of Rule 0? Yes, in which case Rule 0 may be invoked to sanction it. No need, therefore, for a new rule. Dave -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : gentlehorse Date : 7th May 2010 12:20 AM Any anti-trolling rule could be too effectively used to silence all opposing viewpoints, thereby turning the JREF from a debate forum into a cathedral of skeptics all "praying" together. I am against any such rule. Agreed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Darth Rotor Date : 7th May 2010 01:15 AM And its really hard to stay within Rule 12 with these guys. Sometimes I just need to walk away. You answered your own question Ben. I feel your pain. :cool: DR -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : BenBurch Date : 7th May 2010 02:15 AM You answered your own question Ben. I feel your pain. :cool: DR I know, I know. But are we to let them prattle on as though they were the voice of proper Skeptics? This is almost the most indexed thing on Google on many topics. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : remirol Date : 7th May 2010 02:19 AM I know, I know. But are we to let them prattle on as though they were the voice of proper Skeptics? This is almost the most indexed thing on Google on many topics. 1) No single one of us is the arbiter of what is or isn't a "proper skeptic". 2) Are you really that worried that the twoofers, birthers, etc. are going to be able to pass themselves off as such? Some bacteria only dies when you expose it to sunlight. People finding us via Google will see not just their views, but all opposing views as well, and the discussion between them. This only works to our advantage. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : quarky Date : 7th May 2010 02:35 AM If you can come up with a good working definition for trolling that can distinguish it from other posts, it would be looked at. However lots of people have tried and failed to do this. Good luck! Glad to hear that. I've been unable to define it for myself. Think I'll have a go at the dictionary. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : rjh01 Date : 7th May 2010 04:45 PM Just to 'help' you define what is a troll here is a thread raised for that purpose. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117159 It went for 187 posts and did not achieve its aim. That is why I put help in quotes. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : MRC_Hans Date : 7th May 2010 05:38 PM Does there come a point where trolling is in and of itself a violation of Rule 0? Some really egregious trolls appear here from time to time, they never post sources, they say ridiculous things, and they derail any and every topic they touch with utter stupidity. And its really hard to stay within Rule 12 with these guys. Sometimes I just need to walk away. And I know I am not the only one who feels like that.(My bolding) You just specified the solution to trolls. IMHO, the caveat in the present rule-set is already that it tries too hard to regulate general conduct. The problem is that 'good conduct' in any human group is flexible: One man's trolling is another's single-minded persistence. One man's swearing is another's colorful language. One man's personal attack is another's frankness, etc. etc. Hans -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Skwinty Date : 7th May 2010 05:57 PM Any anti-trolling rule could be too effectively used to silence all opposing viewpoints, thereby turning the JREF from a debate forum into a cathedral of skeptics all "praying" together. I am against any such rule. Exactly! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Cleon Date : 7th May 2010 10:44 PM Any anti-trolling rule could be too effectively used to silence all opposing viewpoints, thereby turning the JREF from a debate forum into a cathedral of skeptics all "praying" together. I am against any such rule. Amen, brother. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : kmortis Date : 7th May 2010 11:21 PM (My bolding) You just specified the solution to trolls. IMHO, the caveat in the present rule-set is already that it tries too hard to regulate general conduct. The problem is that 'good conduct' in any human group is flexible: One man's trolling is another's single-minded persistence. One man's swearing is another's colorful language. One man's personal attack is another's frankness, etc. etc. Hans You are stubborn, I stick to my guns. You are wishy-washy, I reconsider the argument. You are an arrogant bastard, I am confident in my abilities. and so on. I have to agree, Rule 0 is about as close to an anti-trolling rule that any of us could live with. You see what happened when the "stay on topic" rule is beefed up. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Myriad Date : 8th May 2010 03:10 AM [not as mod] Trolling is pretty easy to define, it's just difficult to define operationally. Trolling is posting for the main or sole purpose of causing emotional reactions. (Whether an element of dishonesty is always involved is arguable. We generally assume that trolling involves posting opinions or claims that the poster does not actually believe, because if they did believe in their own claims, they are promoting their point of view, so causing an emotional reaction would not be the main purpose. However, I think "honest trolling" also occurs. A person posting Nazi views might completely believe in those Nazi views, but nonetheless have no intent or expectation to convince anyone else, in which case their sole purpose in stating them could still be to cause an emotional reaction.) Since we can never establish for certain what a person's motivations for posting are, or what they do and do not actually believe, we cannot reliably detect trolling from posted content alone. Assuming we can define trolling as posting to cause emotional reactions, then can we say that if a post causes emotional reactions then it is trolling? Of course not, that's a clear affirming the consequent fallacy. (And yet, we get reports that make that implicit claim on a daily basis.) Respectfully, Myriad [/not as mod] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : quadraginta Date : 8th May 2010 04:16 AM [not as mod] Trolling is pretty easy to define, it's just difficult to define operationally. Trolling is posting for the main or sole purpose of causing emotional reactions. I don't agree with that. That is certainly a subset of trolling, and arguably a more common one these days, but in the original iterations trolling was posting to bait the inexperienced into responses everyone else knew to be well worn and (hopefully) erroneous. It was the equivalent of sending a new, young helper on a construction site after a left-handed monkey wrench, or polka-dotted paint. An initiation ritual of sorts. Sometimes mean-spirited, sometimes not, but still almost a rite of passage. I think we still see and indulge in this sort of entertainment, perhaps somewhat guiltily (perhaps not. :blush:) Trolling is a volley, not merely a serve, and "feeding the troll" is often consciously as much a trolling behavior as is any initial emotional reaction seeking post. In fact, in this context "feeding the troll" is probably the more historically rooted trolling behavior. Merely posting something that is patently silly, offensive, or poorly thought out is not sole, sufficient qualification for troll status. The author might be quite sincere in their own mind, even if the presentation doesn't reflect it. I think we can find abundant evidence of that here on these very fora. It's a time honored Internet recreational activity, possibly the main attraction of some of our busier sub-fora, and only a problem when it gets out of hand, or offends some individual sensibilities. That's one of the things moderation is intended to address; when, where, and how the line gets crossed, and it's why you guys get the big bucks. :p :rolleyes: Better you than me. Thank you (all of you) for your efforts. In spite of protests to the contrary they do not go unappreciated. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Debunker Date : 8th May 2010 02:02 PM Does there come a point where trolling is in and of itself a violation of Rule 0? Some really egregious trolls appear here from time to time, they never post sources, they say ridiculous things, and they derail any and every topic they touch with utter stupidity. And its really hard to stay within Rule 12 with these guys. Sometimes I just need to walk away. And I know I am not the only one who feels like that. And I assume your definition of "troll" should be "the one that argues in a way I find unfriendly.." Any operational definition of the word "troll"?? Viva the freedom of speech in the JREF Forum!!!! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Foolmewunz Date : 8th May 2010 07:48 PM [not as mod] Trolling is pretty easy to define, it's just difficult to define operationally. Trolling is posting for the main or sole purpose of causing emotional reactions. (Whether an element of dishonesty is always involved is arguable. We generally assume that trolling involves posting opinions or claims that the poster does not actually believe, because if they did believe in their own claims, they are promoting their point of view, so causing an emotional reaction would not be the main purpose. However, I think "honest trolling" also occurs. A person posting Nazi views might completely believe in those Nazi views, but nonetheless have no intent or expectation to convince anyone else, in which case their sole purpose in stating them could still be to cause an emotional reaction.) Since we can never establish for certain what a person's motivations for posting are, or what they do and do not actually believe, we cannot reliably detect trolling from posted content alone. Assuming we can define trolling as posting to cause emotional reactions, then can we say that if a post causes emotional reactions then it is trolling? Of course not, that's a clear affirming the consequent fallacy. (And yet, we get reports that make that implicit claim on a daily basis.) Respectfully, Myriad [/not as mod] Höw "sole"is sole? I can say, with certainty, that I don't agree with that rather limited definition of trolling*. There are numerous posters who I enjoy reading and who often seem to post, at least in a large number of their posts, solely for emotional response. I've done the same myself. Surely we're not going to tar all such attempts at heart string tugging: pet rescue stories, sick friends and parents and selves, hard times at the old homestead, looking for work, life sux, etc.... *Not saying that I have a good definition of it, myself. See Quadraginta's post following yours. He's also making a valid observation, but I don't think that defines trolling, either. It's pretty much been said by others - and better - one person's troll is another's "interesting character". -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : quadraginta Date : 9th May 2010 01:45 AM Höw "sole"is sole? I can say, with certainty, that I don't agree with that rather limited definition of trolling*. There are numerous posters who I enjoy reading and who often seem to post, at least in a large number of their posts, solely for emotional response. I've done the same myself. Surely we're not going to tar all such attempts at heart string tugging: pet rescue stories, sick friends and parents and selves, hard times at the old homestead, looking for work, life sux, etc.... *Not saying that I have a good definition of it, myself. See Quadraginta's post following yours. He's also making a valid observation, but I don't think that defines trolling, either. It's pretty much been said by others - and better - one person's troll is another's "interesting character". Just to clarify, mine was as much a historical observation as anything else, and a response to Myriad's proposed definition, much in the same vein as yours, that a simple definition is probably not within the reach of any consensus. Words change their meaning in accepted usage over time. This is the nature of language. "Apology" is one of my personal favorites. At one time it had no onus of accepted guilt. Quite the opposite, it was expected to be a justification in defense. The subtleties of computer slang change with dizzying speed by comparison. "Hacker" used to have no negative connotations at all, but rather was a term of admiration and respect among a nascent community of programming pioneers. The doomed rear-guard action of a relative handful of computer geeks was insufficient to keep it from morphing into a near synonym for "criminal". "Troll" has seen a similar evolution from its original application in this context in the USENET days. The idea that it is someone intending offense has become a sort of standard, but in practice my interpretation that it is intended to elicit a response of some sort, but not necessarily one of outrage or indignation is not only closer to those early roots, but borne out in the interplay of posts in such venues as CT or Politics, possibly even in a more friendly fashion in some of the Community humor threads. The concept of "bait" as an enticement or lure is key to this, as opposed to an evil critter under a bridge. Of course, the "Any post I don't like" interpretation is developing a cachet of its own, and may well end up the victor in the semantics sweepstakes. I wouldn't make book against that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : zooterkin Date : 9th May 2010 03:40 AM "Troll" has seen a similar evolution from its original application in this context in the USENET days. The idea that it is someone intending offense has become a sort of standard, but in practice my interpretation that it is intended to elicit a response of some sort, but not necessarily one of outrage or indignation is not only closer to those early roots, but borne out in the interplay of posts in such venues as CT or Politics, possibly even in a more friendly fashion in some of the Community humor threads. The concept of "bait" as an enticement or lure is key to this, as opposed to an evil critter under a bridge. Well, the 'trolling' in question, as you probably know, refers to a type of fishing with bait, not a mythical goat-botherer. The fishing is usually for a particular response, often of outrage, very similar to posting flame-bait (although that term seems to have been overtaken largely by 'trolling', which covers a slightly wider range as you might be after a response other than anger). I think it can be hard to pin down trolling in a single post, but it becomes easier to spot if you examine the whole posting history, where you can see how the alleged troll responds (or, very often, doesn't respond) to the replies to the bait. That's not to say we could still have a definition that could be incorporated in the rules, however. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : quadraginta Date : 9th May 2010 04:42 AM Well, the 'trolling' in question, as you probably know, refers to a type of fishing with bait, not a mythical goat-botherer. The fishing is usually for a particular response, often of outrage, very similar to posting flame-bait (although that term seems to have been overtaken largely by 'trolling', which covers a slightly wider range as you might be after a response other than anger). Yes. I do know. In fact it was the point I was trying to make, so I guess I didn't make it very well. That is exactly the etymology which contributed to the original usage, and remains to some degree in the more current ones. It is good that you mention the term "flame bait", also a hand-me-down from USENET and the BBS's, and also a derivative of the original on-line application of "troll". It is a subset of trolling, and perhaps a more appropriate term for the conversation here, because I don't think many people would find fault with Myriad's definition (at least, assuming the negative implication of "emotional") if the term it was applied to was "flame bait". So, when is a post "flame bait" as opposed to some other less in-your-face sort of 'troll'? When someone feels like it is, I guess. Joe thinks it is, Joy thinks it isn't, Jimmy couldn't care less, and John says to himself, "Oh, goody. This should be fun to watch.". I think that puts us right back to why there are moderators. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : quadraginta Date : 9th May 2010 07:03 AM I think it can be hard to pin down trolling in a single post, but it becomes easier to spot if you examine the whole posting history, where you can see how the alleged troll responds (or, very often, doesn't respond) to the replies to the bait. That's not to say we could still have a definition that could be incorporated in the rules, however. I had to come back to this half. Sorry to break it up like that. RL intruded. I think the problem is that as a concept trolling, in both application and received perception, is a continuum rather than some event, and any attempt to draw a line on that continuum is going to find disagreement on both sides. It is only as some particular example moves more towards one direction or the other that a consensus will begin to develop, and even then individual tolerances are going to vary. I'm probably not expressing myself well. The expression "Don't feed the troll." encapsulates one of the issues. If someone posts with the obvious intent to anger and inflame ... and no one responds at all, what harm is done? I scroll right past it. That is a nanosecond's effort on my part. I am fairly thick-skinned, it usually takes more than a stranger's inconsiderate words to upset me. Other people react differently. Say someone responds with a caustic and depreciating remark. I'll suggest that both actors are getting something they want out of the exchange. Say someone is outraged or insulted and they respond by saying so, It doesn't need a great deal of experience to discover that that is exactly the response desired. Should they have known better? After a few iterations ... well, yes. I'm inclined to think that they may be getting something out of the exchange also. Others might try to engage the poster in reasoned discussion, with varying results ...mostly predicable results, I admit. Elsewhere on the continuum are more subtle offerings, but with no real difference in intent. Look at the thread "Porn vs. Art (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=169540)" for example. Here we have a thread that is clearly a troll, as is evidenced both by the content of the OP, Clearly, porn is not art per se, especially child porn, as some misguided, self-indulgent people like to think. (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/1025223/child-porn-laws-impose-costs-on-artists) as well as by your yardstick of examining the posting history of its creator. It is not unfair to suggest that it fits Myriad's definition or that of "flame bait". This thread went on for over 1200 posts, and may not be done yet. Most of the posts were people toying with (taunting) the OP, and it could be argued that a great deal of satisfaction was derived from that indulgence by some. But in the course of the thread there were other contributions and tangential conversations of merit. How would you draw a line which can anticipate positive results from a clearly negative impetus? There were some very good comments in that thread, even some interesting extended discussions that would have otherwise been lost. How do you weigh the enjoyment derived by some people playing cat and mouse against the resentment of others that bandwidth is being wasted. I have no doubt that there was a substantial number of on-lookers, many perhaps in a train-wreck vein, but relishing it nonetheless. I'll stay open-minded about the idea of a definition or rule set for identifying unwelcome trollish behavior, but I am not hopeful that one can be arrived at which doesn't cause more damage than it prevents. I'm all but certain that we won't find one which satisfies everybody. Not everything can be addressed by rule-based decision making. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : JWideman Date : 9th May 2010 07:27 AM Actually, the definition of trolling is "posting with the purpose of distracting a forum from its more serious discussions, but without otherwise breaking the rules". The trouble is that (good) trolling is indistinguishable from the usual topics we discuss. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : quadraginta Date : 9th May 2010 07:41 AM Actually, the definition of trolling is "posting with the purpose of distracting a forum from its more serious discussions, but without otherwise breaking the rules". The trouble is that (good) trolling is indistinguishable from the usual topics we discuss. :D I can go with that one. Have we arrived at a distinction without a difference? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : a_unique_person Date : 12th May 2010 11:44 PM Trolling. Repeated comments that never actually contribute anything, combined with, point blank refusal to actually address the issue. For example, in the case of topic that covers an area of science, an outright refusal to address the science. This does not cover all trolling by any means, but it does specifically address one type of trolling. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : jsfisher Date : 13th May 2010 12:01 AM Trolling. Repeated comments that never actually contribute anything, combined with, point blank refusal to actually address the issue. For example, in the case of topic that covers an area of science, an outright refusal to address the science. This does not cover all trolling by any means, but it does specifically address one type of trolling. Unfortunately, for the more polar topics in the Science forum, your description would cover many of the posts from either pole. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : Dave Rogers Date : 14th May 2010 12:29 AM Unfortunately, for the more polar topics in the Science forum, your description would cover many of the posts from either pole. And it's hard to think of many posts in the Conspiracy Theories sections that it wouldn't cover. Dave -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : Debunker Date : 15th May 2010 12:16 PM Trolling. Repeated comments that never actually contribute anything, combined with, point blank refusal to actually address the issue. For example, in the case of topic that covers an area of science, an outright refusal to address the science. This does not cover all trolling by any means, but it does specifically address one type of trolling. Good. Please, define how you can uniquely define, in a clear way, if a comment "never actually contribute anything" or if someone is refusing to "actually address the issue". -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : Debunker Date : 15th May 2010 12:26 PM Actually, the definition of trolling is "posting with the purpose of distracting a forum from its more serious discussions, but without otherwise breaking the rules". The trouble is that (good) trolling is indistinguishable from the usual topics we discuss. There is even "good" and "bad" trolling? :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : UncaYimmy Date : 15th May 2010 02:53 PM There is even "good" and "bad" trolling? :) In my opinion, yes. I actually enjoy the physics cranks who come through this board after having been banned on other boards. While I won't sit down and read a physics textbook like I should, I greatly enjoy reading this crackpot theories and the explanations of why they are wrong. I'm sure others get tired of it, but I always learn something new. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : rjh01 Date : 15th May 2010 06:39 PM There is even "good" and "bad" trolling? :) Yes. A good troll starts a thread that generates a huge number of posts in that thread. Edit. A sub set of which is what UncaYimmy is talking about above. A bad troll is one who posts in many threads and derails them possibly (but not always) in breach of rule 11. The troll may ask basic questions or give stupid opinions just to try to get a response, with no follow up. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : Lothian Date : 15th May 2010 07:06 PM I would prefer a Ruling Troll Auntie. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : arthwollipot Date : 15th May 2010 07:18 PM Who decides whether a particular post is trolling or not? I would be against any rule that tried to make this decision objective. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : quixotecoyote Date : 15th May 2010 08:47 PM Me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : Debunker Date : 15th May 2010 10:34 PM Me. Very interesting reply. Guess this is more or less how this forum is handled. If the mod enjoys the trolling it is not trolling. If the mod does not enjoy the trolling, this is breach of rule x -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : Foolmewunz Date : 16th May 2010 01:27 PM I think more to Quixotecoyote's point would be that we all seem to define trolls and trolling in our own way. Ergo, "Me" is the perfect answer to an unanswerable question. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : quixotecoyote Date : 16th May 2010 08:04 PM Hey now. I'm enjoying being Debunker's personal mod. Don't spoil this for me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : Debunker Date : 16th May 2010 11:36 PM Hey now. I'm enjoying being Debunker's personal mod. Don't spoil this for me. BTW, are you a mod? (and, is specific, the one who moves all my posts?) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : Jeff Wagg Date : 17th May 2010 07:49 AM I'd love to get rid of trolls, I just don't see a way to identify them. The only way I can think to do it would be to have a panel of people look at a particular case, and then decide what they thought. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Author : gentlehorse Date : 17th May 2010 08:25 AM [the lowest form of wit]I'd feel a lot better knowing that it was a panel that decided who I could and could not read, as opposed to an individual. Even though the functional definition of "troll" would still be an unknown, we'd be able to employ an appeal to a majority/authority, which, as we've learned from our studies of logic, provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness.[/the lowest form of wit] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Author : Tricky Date : 17th May 2010 10:35 AM I've stated it before, but I think trolls are one of the things that makes this forum fun and interesting. Otherwise, it would just be a bunch of people agreeing with each other. Troll-spawned threads are always the most subscribed ones on the boards. As much as people complain about them, everybody has something they want to say to a troll. And they do. Sometimes they say it in such interesting and creative ways that they inspire others to add their arguments to their arsenal for dealing with irrational people. I find that to be useful. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Author : quadraginta Date : 17th May 2010 11:59 AM [the lowest form of wit]I'd feel a lot better knowing that it was a panel that decided who I could and could not read, as opposed to an individual. Even though the functional definition of "troll" would still be an unknown, we'd be able to employ an appeal to a majority/authority, which, as we've learned from our studies of logic, provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness.[/the lowest form of wit] To solve for the IQ of a committee, determine the IQ of the smartest person in the committee and divide by the number of members. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Author : quadraginta Date : 17th May 2010 12:00 PM I've stated it before, but I think trolls are one of the things that makes this forum fun and interesting. Otherwise, it would just be a bunch of people agreeing with each other. Troll-spawned threads are always the most subscribed ones on the boards. As much as people complain about them, everybody has something they want to say to a troll. And they do. Sometimes they say it in such interesting and creative ways that they inspire others to add their arguments to their arsenal for dealing with irrational people. I find that to be useful. Yes. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Author : rjh01 Date : 17th May 2010 04:37 PM I'd love to get rid of trolls, I just don't see a way to identify them. The only way I can think to do it would be to have a panel of people look at a particular case, and then decide what they thought. This might not be a bad idea if you accept my definition of a troll: 1. Adds posts to many existing threads, which add nothing to the discussion. They may be jokes or opinions that are clearly wrong. 2. Few people respond to these posts. These responses add nothing to the discussion. They may indicate how stupid the post is. 3. The troll does not acknowledge these posts. 4. Has contributed to a large number of threads in AAH. This means that the mods moved their posts to AAH from many different threads. A troll would have all of the above criteria as a pattern of behaviour. Questions for discussion. 1. Do these members exist (banned or otherwise)? Do not name these members. 2. Would the forum be better off without them? 3. You may refine these rules. NB. There are many other definitions of a troll. Not interested in those. For example Tricky mentioned one type of troll who starts many threads, but does not contribute further. The thread then gets many posts. This type of troll does not meet my criteria and so they will not be impacted. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 46] Author : Fitter Date : 17th May 2010 04:40 PM This might not be a bad idea if you accept my definition of a troll: 1. Adds posts to many existing threads, which add nothing to the discussion. They may be jokes or opinions that are clearly wrong. 2. Few people respond to these posts. These responses add nothing to the discussion. They may indicate how stupid the post is. 3. The troll does not acknowledge these posts. 4. Has contributed to a large number of threads in AAH. This means that the mods moved their posts to AAH from many different threads. A troll would have all of the above criteria as a pattern of behaviour. Questions for discussion. 1. Do these members exist (banned or otherwise)? Do not name these members. 2. Would the forum be better off without them? 3. You may refine these rules. NB. There are many other definitions of a troll. Not interested in those. For example Tricky mentioned one type of troll who starts many threads, but does not contribute further. The thread then gets many posts. This type of troll does not meet my criteria and so they will not be impacted. I, for one, hope that your definitions are rejected. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 47] Author : rjh01 Date : 17th May 2010 04:49 PM I, for one, hope that your definitions are rejected not accepted. Fixed your post. You have a different opinion to me. That is OK. I am thinking of people who put nothing but garbage in their posts in the public areas. What goes on in the members only areas I am not worried about. If a person is here to learn that is OK, even if they are 100% ignorant. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 48] Author : Fitter Date : 17th May 2010 05:03 PM Please don't do that again. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 49] Author : UncaYimmy Date : 17th May 2010 05:11 PM I'd love to get rid of trolls... Why? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 50] Author : Foolmewunz Date : 17th May 2010 06:11 PM This might not be a bad idea if you accept my definition of a troll: 1. Adds posts to many existing threads, which add nothing to the discussion. They may be jokes or opinions that are clearly wrong. 2. Few people respond to these posts. These responses add nothing to the discussion. They may indicate how stupid the post is. 3. The troll does not acknowledge these posts. 4. Has contributed to a large number of threads in AAH. This means that the mods moved their posts to AAH from many different threads. A troll would have all of the above criteria as a pattern of behaviour. Questions for discussion. 1. Do these members exist (banned or otherwise)? Do not name these members. 2. Would the forum be better off without them? 3. You may refine these rules. NB. There are many other definitions of a troll. Not interested in those. For example Tricky mentioned one type of troll who starts many threads, but does not contribute further. The thread then gets many posts. This type of troll does not meet my criteria and so they will not be impacted. Well, yes to all of the above, of course. Just so long as we get more rules. Lots and lots of rules, I say. There's a real-life counter to Tricky's example, whom I will not name by name, but who starts drive-by threads the elicit about 20 responses and then peter out. Far from inspiring a truly ripping thread, this person inspires mostly queries as "WTF was that". Now, is this a "Full Troll", a "Early Troll", a "Borderline Troll", or just someone who hasn't quite figured out what all this question/response/rebuttal/question stuff is all about? A lot of us fit into certain patterns in your itemized list. 1. Off-topic one-liners and jokes: Me. Scrut. Applecorped. Akhenaten. Trentwray. Many others. 1.A. "... or opinions that are clearly wrong..." Whoa, Nellie! Can I recommend The Atheist and BeAChooser as the arbiters of whose opinions are "clearly wrong"? 2. Few Responses: I've started deadly serious and excellent threads that got not a peep out of the miserable ingrates who call themselves skeptics other members. And I'm the smartest person I know. 2.A. Responses either non-responsive or making fun of the troll: How's this a problem of the quote-endquote troll, and not a problem regarding those members? 3. OPer doesn't acknowledge the off-topic derails: That's a problem? That should get him bonus points for admirable behaviour. If the OPer answers and it spirals downwards into name-calling and finger-pointing everyone will be pointing at him saying, "See what a troll he is. Just comes in here to start a fight." Yet, if he doesn't, we'll be going, "See what a troll he is. He comes in her and baits us and then won't stay and have a fight." 4. AAH as tallying device: I'm not sure that anyone who hangs out in Politics or CT would ever want that. And there'd be the problem of how to count it. I had 30 posts in a Mayday thread removed to AAH. If I was a neophyte, that could have been a considerable percentage of my total and would've quite possbly brought me to the attention of the Thought Police. Where's this committee going to be chosen from. Serious-thinking(e.g. boring) members who want to see only serious debate from serious posters? Who's going to speak up for those people with "wrong opinions"? Maybe we could give them custom titles? Little yellow stars? Questions: 1. Yes. Who cares? 2. No, probably not. 3. I think "Troll Patrol" is an overwrought topic. If you don't like playing with what you consider to be a troll, then don't. Many others of us actually think that some of them are interesting. And since none of us can agree on which are the ones who merit that description, that means almost everyone thinks that one or another of these dreaded "trolls" is any interesting poster. If they don't break the rules, leave them alone. And we certainly don't need to be creating new rules nor a committee of right-thinking individuals directed at eliminating a certain type of undesirable poster. Every single line above should be prefaced with "IMHO". -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 51] Author : rjh01 Date : 17th May 2010 06:37 PM Yes, I could put IMHO in front of everything I say, but then most people would also need to do the same. Edit. Please assume it is there for most of my posts. As well as "I am not a mod." Yes, many people at times meet one or two of my criteria. However not many of them would meet all of the criteria as a pattern of behaviour. Yes, you may have heaps of posts in AAH just because the mods decided to put a huge thread, which you posted heavily into AAH. However this would only count as one thread, not heaps of posts. Yes Foolmewunz, half of the threads you start do not go more than 40 posts, but the other half do (I checked), so you do not meet a variation of criteria 2, so you are not a troll by my criteria. I could go on and explain how Foolmewunz is not a troll by any of my criteria, but I think that one example is enough. I could do the same with most other members here. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 52] Author : Foolmewunz Date : 17th May 2010 07:02 PM I meant every line in MY POST. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 53] Author : Akhenaten Date : 17th May 2010 08:04 PM This might not be a bad idea if you accept my definition of a troll: Accepting any one person's definition of a troll is a horrifically bad idea. That's kind of the gist of this entire thread. On what basis do you presume to be able to overcome the objections of everyone who feels that this is the case? Questions for discussion. It's 'Questions to be answered' or 'Points for discussion'. The hybridised version is pretty silly. 1. Do these members exist (banned or otherwise)? Do not name these members. Yes. Why not, rjh01? 2. Would the forum be better off without them? Possibly, but they'll be replaced soon enough. Useless pratts are a dime a dozen, sadly. 3. You may refine these rules. You may rest assured. Thank you kindly for this magnanimous gesture. 1. Adds posts to many existing threads, which add nothing to the discussion. They may be jokes or opinions that are clearly wrong. 1. Adds posts to many existing threads, which I don't understand. They may be jokes that I don't get or opinions that I clearly disagree with. 2. Few people respond to these posts. These responses add nothing to the discussion. They may indicate how stupid the post is. 2. If few people respond to these posts, there's no problem whatsoever. 3. The troll does not acknowledge these posts. 3. The troll doesn't post in the thread that the troll has posted in . . . wait . . . what??? 4. Has contributed to a large number of threads in AAH. This means that the mods moved their posts to AAH from many different threads. 4. Has too many threads in the vacuum cleaner bag. This means that the vacuum has picked up threads from many different articles of clothing and the troll's wardrobe is thus unnecessarily flashy. A troll would have all of the above criteria as a pattern of behaviour. A troll would be indistunguishable from any other poster according to these criteria. NB. There are many other definitions of a troll. Not interested in those. 5. Only interested in his or her own opinions and refuses to acknowledge the advice of others. For example Tricky mentioned one type of troll who starts many threads, but does not contribute further. We should make Tricky a moderator, forthwith. The thread then gets many posts. This type of troll does not meet my criteria and so they will not be impacted. Your vast and selfless generosity is only exceeded by your modest humility. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 54] Author : Akhenaten Date : 17th May 2010 08:43 PM Fixed your post. You have a different opinion to me. That is OK. I am thinking of people who put nothing but garbage in their posts in the public areas. What goes on in the members only areas I am not worried about. That's just rude and arrogant. Please try and reduce the subjective content of your posts so that some progress might be made. If a person is here to learn that is OK, even if they are 100% ignorant. So people who are here to teach are not OK? That will change the nature of the Forum, no doubt about it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 55] Author : Akhenaten Date : 17th May 2010 08:53 PM Well, yes to all of the above, of course. Just so long as we get more rules. Lots and lots of rules, I say. IMHO this is only a good idea if I get to make up all of the new rules. If they don't break the rules, leave them alone. And we certainly don't need to be creating new rules nor a committee of right-thinking individuals directed at eliminating a certain type of undesirable poster. IMHO this is exactly the kind of clear-headed objectivity that is the marque of the JREF Forum. Every single line above should be prefaced with "IMHO". IMHOtep was the leading mind of the ancient world, his genius unsurpassed at least until the time of Leonardo da Vinci, and only a mind of such capacity as his would be up to the task of heading the Troll Police™. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 56] Author : UncaYimmy Date : 17th May 2010 08:56 PM Accepting any one person's definition of a troll is a horrifically bad idea. That's kind of the gist of this entire thread. Troll is just another word for nothing left to lose. Wait a sec...Troll is just another word for people who make posts that we don't want to read and don't want people to respond to yet we read and respond to them anyway. It's also a word for someone who always posts this way and no other. Yes. Why not, rjh01? This is an excellent point. It's all good and well to make up rules. The next step is to apply those rules mentally to events in the past and determine if the effect is what you anticipated. Ultimately these rules will affect real people, so shouldn't we know who is going to be labeled a troll and banned? 1. Adds posts to many existing threads, which I don't understand. They may be jokes that I don't get or opinions that I clearly disagree with. I thought we had a rule to deal with that. Plumjam (oh, dear, I named somebody) tends to fire off one-liners, but generally restricts them to one or two per thread. If the whole thread starts going that direction, the mods step in and deal with it. Of course, this brings up the interesting point that "trolls" end up being punished for being successful. If they fail, they don't get in trouble. Whenever VisionFromFeeling posted outside of a VFF thread, she always talked about herself and managed to work in a claim or that she was a paranormal claimant. It didn't take long for people to simply stop responding to it. By contrast I'm sure people could name "trolls" who repeatedly brought up creationism, Zionism, or whateverism where others would respond in kind. Those trolls were punished, and I bet many were banned. The responders weren't. Same activity, different results. Where exactly, then, does the problem rest? 2. If few people respond to these posts, there's no problem whatsoever. But they are TROLLS, my friend! 4. Has too many threads in the vacuum cleaner bag. This means that the vacuum has picked up threads from many different articles of clothing and the troll's wardrobe is thus unnecessarily flashy. I bet for every "troll" with a bunch of posts in AAH you will find a handful of "troll responders" as well. Only they are not a problem because the other guy started it. A troll would be indistunguishable from any other poster according to these criteria. Justice Potter Stewart once said, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 57] Author : remirol Date : 17th May 2010 09:21 PM I could go on and explain how Foolmewunz is not a troll by any of my criteria, but I think that one example is enough. I could do the same with most other members here. And that is the core of the problem. Your suggested definition, besides being far too wide-sweeping and not narrowly written, requires us to come back to you for each member and say "OK, is (name) a troll by your criteria?" This will not cut it, so should not be adopted. Beyond that, other posters have commented and I will reiterate: there is a difference between a discussion/debate board and a community forum. This is why there is a separate community section that is members-only. The former type thrives on discussion and debate. Very few debates happen where all people involved agree with each other... which is exactly what a community is, "a group of like-minded people". Trolls can be anathema to a community, but they serve a valuable purpose for a discussion: they provide a polarizing view for people to argue against. The JREF forums are both; banning 'trolls' by any definition would turn these forums into the latter, which would be an unwelcome outcome. There are enough cathedrals on the Internet; we don't need to add one more. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 58] Author : rjh01 Date : 17th May 2010 09:26 PM Accepting any one person's definition of a troll is a horrifically bad idea. That's kind of the gist of this entire thread. I will respond to this one point. There are many definitions of what a troll is. I am for the moment only interested in one of those. If you, or anyone else wants to discuss any other definition and what if anything should be done about those members that meet that criteria, then please do not let me stop you. I might even join you. The rest of your post contains too much junk for me to respond to. I hope you get the hint soon. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 59] Author : UncaYimmy Date : 17th May 2010 09:43 PM The rest of your post contains too much junk for me to respond to. I hope you get the hint soon. Let's see how your rules apply to you. This is not a personal attack but an example of how poorly constructed your rules are. 1. Adds posts to many existing threads, which add nothing to the discussion. They may be jokes or opinions that are clearly wrong. You've done this "nothing to respond to" several times recently including outside of this thread. I'm pretty sure you post "tags added" quite a bit. Your post in the MDC thread about the Indian breatharian is simply wrong on many accounts. 2. Few people respond to these posts. These responses add nothing to the discussion. They may indicate how stupid the post is. That's how people react to your tags added posts. 3. The troll does not acknowledge these posts. You're "acknowledging" posts in this thread only to tell us you won't be acknowledging them. Does that count? 4. Has contributed to a large number of threads in AAH. This means that the mods moved their posts to AAH from many different threads. You have 42 posts in AAH. Is that a large number? And yet I would not consider you a troll. Do you consider yourself one? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 60] Author : rjh01 Date : 17th May 2010 09:46 PM And that is the core of the problem. Your suggested definition, besides being far too wide-sweeping and not narrowly written, requires us to come back to you for each member and say "OK, is (name) a troll by your criteria?" This will not cut it, so should not be adopted. Beyond that, other posters have commented and I will reiterate: there is a difference between a discussion/debate board and a community forum. This is why there is a separate community section that is members-only. The former type thrives on discussion and debate. Very few debates happen where all people involved agree with each other... which is exactly what a community is, "a group of like-minded people". Trolls can be anathema to a community, but they serve a valuable purpose for a discussion: they provide a polarizing view for people to argue against. The JREF forums are both; banning 'trolls' by any definition would turn these forums into the latter, which would be an unwelcome outcome. There are enough cathedrals on the Internet; we don't need to add one more. I think that the chances of anything from this thread making any difference is remote. I am only contributing to this thread on the remote chance that this thread does contribute something to the future of this forum. I have no problem with trolls that 'provide a polarizing view for people to argue against.' They would not meet the definition I provided on the grounds that many people respond to their posts. Hence I defined what type of troll I am talking about. remirol and I are not 'like-minded.' Neither are we trolls by almost any definition. We like most members here, give our honest opinions (and facts) on various subjects and give honest reviews of other opinions. The end result should be working out what are the facts and the valid opinions are. By doing this people learn. That is how a discussion I think should happen. People should not be attempting to disrupt a discussion by putting in heaps of posts that not only add nothing but distract from the discussion. An odd joke will not do this. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 61] Author : remirol Date : 17th May 2010 09:50 PM I have no problem with trolls that 'provide a polarizing view for people to argue against.' They would not meet the definition I provided on the grounds that many people respond to their posts. Hence I defined what type of troll I am talking about. Actually, that's not necessarily true; often only a single person responds to the post, and then the debate continues among the members who are willing to discuss, rather than just troll. But again, here we come back to the fact that your definition requires specific clarification from you -- this is unworkable in practice. We like most members here, I'm pretty sure there should be a comma between "We" and "like". Si? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 62] Author : quarky Date : 17th May 2010 09:55 PM OMG! I just realized I'm a troll. This is embarrassing. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 63] Author : rjh01 Date : 17th May 2010 10:18 PM The rest of your post contains too much junk for me to respond to. I hope you get the hint soon. Let's see how your rules apply to you. This is not a personal attack but an example of how poorly constructed your rules are. 1. Adds posts to many existing threads, which add nothing to the discussion. They may be jokes or opinions that are clearly wrong. You've done this "nothing to respond to" several times recently including outside of this thread. I'm pretty sure you post "tags added" quite a bit. Your post in the MDC thread about the Indian breatharian is simply wrong on many accounts. 2. Few people respond to these posts. These responses add nothing to the discussion. They may indicate how stupid the post is. That's how people react to your tags added posts. 3. The troll does not acknowledge these posts. You're "acknowledging" posts in this thread only to tell us you won't be acknowledging them. Does that count? 4. Has contributed to a large number of threads in AAH. This means that the mods moved their posts to AAH from many different threads. You have 42 posts in AAH. Is that a large number? And yet I would not consider you a troll. Do you consider yourself one? Good post. Now I can show how most members would not meet my criteria of being a troll. 1. Yes I have said "nothing to respond to" or similar several times recently. This says that I have read the post and think it is of poor quality (this includes inane). However in the same threads I have responded to other posts like this one that I thought does add something. Also just being wrong is not enough to pass this criteria. It must be 'clearly wrong.' If I tried to argue that the breatharian should now be given the $1m that would be 'clearly wrong.' So I fail to act like a troll on this criteria. 2. As for my tagging posts, I just checked. Many of the posts also add other things. They do at least point out that there are other threads in existence on similar (but maybe not the same) topic. So they do add something. Yes, people do not respond to them. However people do frequently respond to my other posts. So I give myself 1 / 10 for trolling behaviour on this criteria. 3. No. I discussed that above. Also I do respond to many posts. So I fail to act like a troll on this criteria. 4. 42 posts is not a lot. But I did say threads. I have contributed to 24 threads. Given that I have had over 10,000 posts this is only a small number. If you want to see what a lot is, do a search in AAH of a few members who have been suspended several times. Most of these will have many threads in AAH. So by own criteria of a troll I am not a troll. Very few of us could meet my definition of a troll. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 64] Author : rjh01 Date : 17th May 2010 10:22 PM Actually, that's not necessarily true; often only a single person responds to the post, and then the debate continues among the members who are willing to discuss, rather than just troll. But again, here we come back to the fact that your definition requires specific clarification from you -- this is unworkable in practice. I'm pretty sure there should be a comma between "We" and "like". Si? I will agree on all of this. My definition would probably need a lot of refining. That can be done by anyone willing and able to do so. Yes my post does need an extra comma. Please pretend it is there.:) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 65] Author : chillzero Date : 17th May 2010 10:25 PM This might not be a bad idea if you accept my definition of a troll: 1. Adds posts to many existing threads, which add nothing to the discussion. They may be jokes or opinions that are clearly wrong. Wait .... who defines 'clearly wrong'? What's the point of a discussion forum if everyone agrees on what is 'clearly wrong' ... removing all requirement to discuss and debate? And ... about "add nothing to the discussion" - would that include certain members who rarely do anything other than restate the obvious .. and are often 'clearly wrong' (imo, but not mine alone) about how they have interpreted that information? 2. Few people respond to these posts. These responses add nothing to the discussion. They may indicate how stupid the post is. ... or how stupid the reader is ... or how that poster is expert at supplying information that is difficult to refute 3. The troll does not acknowledge these posts. So what? 4. Has contributed to a large number of threads in AAH. This means that the mods moved their posts to AAH from many different threads. Define 'contribute' - many posts in AAH end up there due to the chain of response. NB. There are many other definitions of a troll. Not interested in those. For example Tricky mentioned one type of troll who starts many threads, but does not contribute further. The thread then gets many posts. This type of troll does not meet my criteria and so they will not be impacted. Impacted by what? You have not defined what should happen to those people that you personally consider to be trolls. If you are referring to Jeff's suggestion of a panel / hit-squad then I think that's a very worrying direction to be considering. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 66] Author : Darth Rotor Date : 17th May 2010 10:40 PM BTW, are you a mod? (and, is specific, the one who moves all my posts?) Do you see any blue text under his custom title? Does that blue text spell out the word "moderator" when you read it? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 67] Author : Darth Rotor Date : 17th May 2010 10:42 PM OMG! I just realized I'm a troll. This is embarrassing. If you stop posting, my JREF world will be a bit dimmer, for having lost the twinkling of yet another star ... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 68] Author : UncaYimmy Date : 17th May 2010 10:47 PM Good post. Now I can show how most members would not meet my criteria of being a troll. 1. Yes I have said "nothing to respond to" or similar several times recently. This says that I have read the post and think it is of poor quality (this includes inane). In my opinion it means the opposite. I responded to the posts. However in the same threads I have responded to other posts like this one that I thought does add something. So, it's a percentage thing? I happen to think Sol Invictus is one of my favorites to read. If Sol started posting, "Yeh, but that [whatever] is just trying to dilute the white gene pool" all over the place in addition to all of the valuable posts, I'd call Sol a troll. Wouldn't you? Also just being wrong is not enough to pass this criteria. It must be 'clearly wrong.' If I tried to argue that the breatharian should now be given the $1m that would be 'clearly wrong.' You're clearly wrong in that thread. I just this weekend had somebody prove me "clearly wrong" with a Snopes article as evidence! Only this article was in The Repository of Lost Legends (TROLL) section where they post fake articles to teach people not to rely on authority, so the other member was clearly wrong. So I fail to act like a troll on this criteria. Your suggestion is clearly a bad idea, which reinforces your alleged trollness. See where this is going? 2. As for my tagging posts, I just checked. Many of the posts also add other things. They do at least point out that there are other threads in existence on similar (but maybe not the same) topic. So they do add something. Yes, people do not respond to them. However people do frequently respond to my other posts. I disagree with your relative percentages. You, of course, are adding new criteria by claiming percentages. A person can be a priest who does all manner of good as well as a pedophile. Coaching little league soccer doesn't make up for getting a kid drunk and fondling him. So I give myself 1 / 10 for trolling behaviour on this criteria. Based on the "clearly wrong" criterion, I rank you much higher. 3. No. I discussed that above. Also I do respond to many posts. Sometimes they don't. So I fail to act like a troll on this criteria. Based on the "clearly wrong" criterion, I rank you even higher. 4. 42 posts is not a lot. But I did say threads. I have contributed to 24 threads. Given that I have had over 10,000 posts this is only a small number. If you want to see what a lot is, do a search in AAH of a few members who have been suspended several times. Most of these will have many threads in AAH. Are you seriously arguing that threads rather than posts are important? What if the person is clearly wrong 42 times in one thread? As for 42 being "not a lot" what about percentages? Wouldn't 42 out of 50 total posts be troll-like behavior? So by own criteria of a troll I am not a troll. Very few of us could meet my definition of a troll. One could make the argument that persisting with this thread would be troll-like behavior. I mean, pretty much everybody has agreed it's just not possible to pin down a definition, but here you are persisting with a clearly useless idea. Again, I don't think you are considered a troll by the vast majority of members, but by your own rules, I would be forced to argue for your banishment from the forums. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 69] Author : Akhenaten Date : 17th May 2010 10:50 PM I will respond to this one point. There are many definitions of what a troll is. I am for the moment only interested in one of those. For good or ill, rjh01, this thread, and Forum Management in general, is for all members to discuss FM issues on which they have opinions. Your interests are of no more import than anyone else's, particularly in view of the fact that you are not even the OP. If you, or anyone else wants to discuss any other definition and what if anything should be done about those members that meet that criteria, then please do not let me stop you. I might even join you. I have absolutely no need to have your lack of moderator powers pointed out to me. Might I enquire as to what led you to believe otherwise? The rest of your post contains too much junk for me to respond to. Then don't. Be advised though, that mentioning this intention seems petty and superfluous. Trollish even, some might say. I hope you get the hint soon. I'm a frayed knot. Can you please clarify? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 70] Author : jsfisher Date : 17th May 2010 11:41 PM What problem are we really trying to solve? Does it will boil down to just "I have no self control so make him stop"? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 71] Author : arthwollipot Date : 17th May 2010 11:50 PM This disagreement should be ample demonstration of why we should not have a "no trolling" rule. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 72] Author : Akhenaten Date : 18th May 2010 12:26 AM I will agree on all of this. My definition would probably need a lot of refining. That can be done by anyone willing and able to do so. You may have missed Post #53 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5940562#post5940562). You're welcome. :) Yes my post does need an extra comma. Please pretend it is there.:) Should we pretend to see content in other posts as well. How will we know if we're doing it right? Wouldn't it be safer to respond only to what actually appears? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 73] Author : Akhenaten Date : 18th May 2010 12:29 AM What problem are we really trying to solve? Does it boil down to just "I have no self control so make him stop"? "Ouch!" cried the nail. "Sorry," said the hammer, "but when you said 'I'll nod my head and you hit it' I thought you meant . . ." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 74] Author : Akhenaten Date : 18th May 2010 12:38 AM This disagreement should be ample demonstration of why we should not have a "no trolling" rule. Absolutely. Just because one person is completely wrong and is adding nothing to the discussion does not mean that any action should be taken against him/her. These members often provide a catalyst for more productive discussion, and thus perform a valuable and much under-appreciated service. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 75] Author : quixotecoyote Date : 18th May 2010 12:58 AM Do you see any blue text under his custom title? Does that blue text spell out the word "moderator" when you read it? Well, the way my account is set up, he can't see that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 76] Author : remirol Date : 18th May 2010 01:02 AM Well, the way my account is set up, he can't see that. Going for the thread irony bonus, are we? :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 77] Author : A.A.Alfie Date : 18th May 2010 08:22 AM Any anti-trolling rule could be too effectively used to silence all opposing viewpoints, thereby turning the JREF from a debate forum into a cathedral of skeptics all "praying" together. I am against any such rule. Ditto To be honest, I think some of thos that support the OP are not againsts trolling so much as posters with alternate viewpoints that do not toe the party line. Most of these would have no problem with trollers who are on "their side", just those they oppose. Thereare rules already in place that cover off topic posts, argumentative threads etc. To ban trolls would be to lose much colour and humour in JREF, it would also create threads of grouphug conformity, creating delusions of unanimity. Who decides whether a particular post is trolling or not? I would be against any rule that tried to make this decision objective. Yep, things could become decidedly subjective. Me. I'll be your support -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 78] Author : rjh01 Date : 18th May 2010 09:00 AM One could make the argument that persisting with this thread would be troll-like behavior. I mean, pretty much everybody has agreed it's just not possible to pin down a definition, but here you are persisting with a clearly useless idea. I think this is about the best thing said in this thread so far. I get the feeling that no matter what I say there will be heaps of people attempting to show how I am wrong. As I am not the troll in this thread, I will leave it up to the rest of you to feed the troll. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 79] Author : quarky Date : 18th May 2010 11:30 AM If you stop posting, my JREF world will be a bit dimmer, for having lost the twinkling of yet another star ... Aw, shucks. You made me blush. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 80] Author : UncaYimmy Date : 18th May 2010 11:40 AM I think this is about the best thing said in this thread so far. I get the feeling that no matter what I say there will be heaps of people attempting to show how I am wrong. As I am not the troll in this thread, I will leave it up to the rest of you to feed the troll. I say there is no troll in this thread. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 81] Author : A.A.Alfie Date : 18th May 2010 11:41 AM I have an idea: Why don't the OP supporters put together a list of all the "trolls" they think should be banned. Then we can have a vote on whether to get rid of them or not. After that we can screen all prospective members and ensure that no-one is allowed into the clique unless they think the way 'we' do. :rolleyes: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 82] Author : gentlehorse Date : 18th May 2010 11:52 AM I think this is about the best thing said in this thread so far. I get the feeling that no matter what I say there will be heaps of people attempting to show how I am wrong. As I am not the troll in this thread, I will leave it up to the rest of you to feed the troll. This is interesting. You seem to be implying that somebody is trolling in this thread, while I haven't seen anything that remotely approaches troll-like behavior. Nor do I consider anyone who has posted in this thread to be a troll anywhere else on the forum. Yet you seem to see a troll. Therein lies the problem. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 83] Author : Tricky Date : 18th May 2010 12:23 PM This is interesting. You seem to be implying that somebody is trolling in this thread, while I haven't seen anything that remotely approaches troll-like behavior. Nor do I consider anyone who has posted in this thread to be a troll anywhere else on the forum. Yet you seem to see a troll. Therein lies the problem. Funny. I see nothing but trolls. Each of us has our area(s) of interest. We post in them in predictable manners. We try to elicit certain responses. We want to be noticed. There are certain member we don't mind annoying. All classic troll behavior. Ban everybody. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 84] Author : Foolmewunz Date : 18th May 2010 02:24 PM I have an idea: Why don't the OP supporters put together a list of all the "trolls" they think should be banned. Then we can have a vote on whether to get rid of them or not. After that we can screen all prospective members and ensure that no-one is allowed into the clique unless they think the way 'we' do. :rolleyes: Can we have separate lunch tables in the cafeteria? (Just don't make me sit over with the Maths/Science guys - I haven't got a clue what any of them are saying half the time.) I'll volunteer to sit with the SkepChicks. It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it. Funny. I see nothing but trolls. Each of us has our area(s) of interest. We post in them in predictable manners. We try to elicit certain responses. We want to be noticed. There are certain member we don't mind annoying. All classic troll behavior. Ban everybody. That's the point, isn't it. Either no one's a troll or everyone's a troll. e.g. I've been busy trolling that private treehouse of a thread that the Antipodeans have created - Sensing Murder NZ - to get them to come out to play. My intentions are decent, but my behavior to many participants may be quite trollish. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 85] Author : Klimax Date : 18th May 2010 03:11 PM I have an idea: Why don't the OP supporters put together a list of all the "trolls" they think should be banned. Then we can have a vote on whether to get rid of them or not. After that we can screen all prospective members and ensure that no-one is allowed into the clique unless they think the way 'we' do. :rolleyes: First part is quite good for current discussion. Those who thinks that antitroll rule is needed,who do you think is troll? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 86] Author : A.A.Alfie Date : 18th May 2010 04:10 PM You and me for starters. Then all of the Mods - they are always off topic and causing trouble. I reckon then we should look at anyone with a daily post count of over (say) two. Any more than that must mean they are opinionated trolls. Then those who throw facts at you, and links, and quotations, surely they are trolling - can't even think for themselves. I'm sure there's more - but that's a good place to start. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 87] Author : Klimax Date : 18th May 2010 06:18 PM You and me for starters. I was going to write "Me? A.A.Alfie? ..." but the decided against it and waiting for rjh01. I wonder what happened as this is not usual posting style. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 88] Author : arthwollipot Date : 18th May 2010 09:01 PM Absolutely. Just because one person is completely wrong and is adding nothing to the discussion does not mean that any action should be taken against him/her. These members often provide a catalyst for more productive discussion, and thus perform a valuable and much under-appreciated service.Well, on occasion a troll can be completely obvious (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=175862), in which case the appropriate action can be, and is, taken. This system is not broken. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 89] Author : Akhenaten Date : 18th May 2010 09:13 PM Well, on occasion a troll can be completely obvious (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=175862), in which case the appropriate action can be, and is, taken. This system is not broken. I agree, 100%. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 90] Author : gentlehorse Date : 18th May 2010 09:42 PM Well, on occasion a troll can be completely obvious (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=175862), in which case the appropriate action can be, and is, taken. This system is not broken. Yes, the completely obvious (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=174119) should be responded to in an appropriate fashion. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 91] Author : Debunker Date : 18th May 2010 10:39 PM I'd love to get rid of trolls, I just don't see a way to identify them. The only way I can think to do it would be to have a panel of people look at a particular case, and then decide what they thought. Then people will start to deem as "troll" people with opinions they do not like. Is this a forum of skeptics or what? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 92] Author : A.A.Alfie Date : 18th May 2010 11:24 PM Another thought is that a potential troll in one thread can actually be a very productive member in another. Being a troll (as perceived by some) on one topic does not mean they are in all topics. So in this instance, do we ban them from certain subjects? Or just a blanket ban? For mine, based on the opinions in this thread, having a 'special rule' for trolls would seem unworkable and horribly subjective. The existing rules should (imho) suffice. So, to the OP: Please leave me alone to do my trolling as I see fit, within the existing boundaries.:D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 93] Author : gentlehorse Date : 18th May 2010 11:53 PM Another thought is that a potential troll in one thread can actually be a very productive member in another. Being a troll (as perceived by some) on one topic does not mean they are in all topics. Even within the same thread, there may be some who view a given member as a troll while others do not. As has been said many times: One person's troll is another's interesting character. So in this instance, do we ban them from certain subjects? Or just a blanket ban? Well, first we have to agree on a definition of "troll". :D For mine, based on the opinions in this thread, having a 'special rule' for trolls would seem unworkable and horribly subjective. The existing rules should (imho) suffice. Good lord, you would think so. There are enough of them, replete with labyrinthine paragraphs of explanation. So, to the OP: Please leave me alone to do my trolling as I see fit, within the existing boundaries.:D Reported. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 94] Author : quarky Date : 19th May 2010 12:28 AM What's the opposite of a troll? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 95] Author : arthwollipot Date : 19th May 2010 12:32 AM Then people will start to deem as "troll" people with opinions they do not like. Is this a forum of skeptics or what?The idea of a panel is that one person's opinion might not agree with another's. If (say...) five people can all agree, then there's a reasonable chance that there's a troll. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 96] Author : Soapy Sam Date : 19th May 2010 12:45 AM Seems to me one may already be banned for extreme versions of any behaviour that most folk might consider trolling. But the best response to someone you personally think is trolling, is no response. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 97] Author : gentlehorse Date : 19th May 2010 01:17 AM But the best response to someone you personally think is trolling, is no response. Because I can't control my own behavior, I think a much better response is for the people in power to make the bad people, whom I can't help responding to, go away. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 98] Author : quadraginta Date : 19th May 2010 01:25 AM Because I can't control my own behavior, I think a much better response is for the people in power to make the bad people, whom I can't help responding to, go away. "Now see what you made let me do?" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 99] Author : Darth Rotor Date : 19th May 2010 01:32 AM Funny. I see nothing but trolls. Each of us has our area(s) of interest. We post in them in predictable manners. We try to elicit certain responses. We want to be noticed. There are certain member we don't mind annoying. All classic troll behavior. Ban everybody. What, and make Hal right? :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 100] Author : Darth Rotor Date : 19th May 2010 01:33 AM What's the opposite of a troll? Either a lurker, or a llort. DR -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 101] Author : quarky Date : 19th May 2010 01:45 AM Either a lurker, or a llort. DR I was thinking billy goat. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 102] Author : chillzero Date : 19th May 2010 04:34 PM The idea of a panel is that one person's opinion might not agree with another's. If (say...) five people can all agree, then there's a reasonable chance that there's a troll. I can think of 3 members who would be banned already under that criteria, and another 3 who lasted longer than they did (and caused an outcry when they were banned).... if that panel exists of people that the JREF have already placed their trust in to manage the boards. Even if you require a unanimous decision from this panel (I still say hit-squad) it sets a dangerous precedent to allow people to ban another without reference to breaches of the MA. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 103] Author : Akhenaten Date : 19th May 2010 06:12 PM I can think of 3 members who would be banned already under that criteria, and another 3 who lasted longer than they did (and caused an outcry when they were banned).... if that panel exists of people that the JREF have already placed their trust in to manage the boards. Even if you require a unanimous decision from this panel (I still say hit-squad) it sets a dangerous precedent to allow people to ban another without reference to breaches of the MA. Your remembered cases speak directly to the difficulty here, as I see it. Any time a judgement call is made, be it by an individual authority or a panel of delegates, there will be dissent based on perceptions of subjectivity. It's very much like the rules for the MDC where results must be self-evident and lacking in any requirement for interpretation, and without the ever-elusive, clear and unequivocal definition of 'troll', no fair anti-trolling rule will ever be formulated. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 104] Author : arthwollipot Date : 19th May 2010 10:32 PM I can think of 3 members who would be banned already under that criteria, and another 3 who lasted longer than they did (and caused an outcry when they were banned).... if that panel exists of people that the JREF have already placed their trust in to manage the boards. Even if you require a unanimous decision from this panel (I still say hit-squad) it sets a dangerous precedent to allow people to ban another without reference to breaches of the MA.And that's why I don't think it's a great idea. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 105] Author : Debunker Date : 22nd May 2010 09:23 AM The idea of a panel is that one person's opinion might not agree with another's. If (say...) five people can all agree, then there's a reasonable chance that there's a troll. No. There is a reasonable chance the five people do not like that poster` s opinion and they want to silence him/her. It is not even possible to talk about "trolls" unless there is a clear and practical definition of what a "troll" is, and I have not yet read about any such definition here -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 106] Author : Debunker Date : 22nd May 2010 09:25 AM ..snip.. Well, first we have to agree on a definition of "troll". :D ..snip.. I would add. On a clear and functional definition of who a troll is. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 107] Author : rjh01 Date : 22nd May 2010 01:36 PM I would add. On a clear and functional definition of who a troll is. Good luck on anyone else who makes any effort to define what a troll is. I doubt you will fare any better than what I did in this thread. To prove me wrong just do it and see what happens. You will do better than me if anyone makes a suggestion on how to improve your definition. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 108] Author : Tricky Date : 22nd May 2010 02:12 PM Good luck on anyone else who makes any effort to define what a troll is. I doubt you will fare any better than what I did in this thread. To prove me wrong just do it and see what happens. You will do better than me if anyone makes a suggestion on how to improve your definition. This thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117159)was another vallient effort. I think Hokulele probably came as close as anyone ever will: A troll is someone who posts in anticipation of a reaction rather than a response. They are clearly trying to "get one's goat" rather than advance a discussion. Rather than offering facts and other types of substantiation, they will attempt to escalate the emotional side of an argument, or deliberately hand-wave away points and simply reassert their assumptions. The problem with moderating trolling behavior is that everybody does this at one time or another. There is a continuum of trollishness and I would not want to be the one to determine where along that continuum acting as a troll becomes a bannable offense. On the other hand, I would suggest that if 80% or more of a person's posts on the first few pages within a single thread exhibit trolling rather than debate, the normal system of warnings, infractions, and eventually suspension be followed. I suggest this as it seems like the drive-by trolls do not incite the types of responses that result in the forum's otherwise honorable participants being admonished for lack of civility. Even given that an acceptable definition might be possible, I am still strongly against removing trolls. They are our squeaky wheels. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 109] Author : UncaYimmy Date : 22nd May 2010 02:53 PM Good luck on anyone else who makes any effort to define what a troll is. I doubt you will fare any better than what I did in this thread. To prove me wrong just do it and see what happens. You will do better than me if anyone makes a suggestion on how to improve your definition. Since you issued the challenge, I'll give it a shot. First off, the big mistake everyone is making is that a troll needs to be defined. Wrong. Trolling behavior needs to be defined. Lots of people have received infractions for Rule 12, but we don't label them Personal Attackers because of it. The admins ultimately decide whether the severity and/or frequency of rule breaking is sufficient for someone to be banned from the forum. The benefits are more productive threads and less strain on moderators (among other things), and both are worthy reasons for banning a member. Based on what people have said, trolling behavior seems to require several elements being present all at once: 1) Starting and/or derailing multiple threads towards... 2) Subjects that result in numerous responses... 3) That are repetitive and/or offer little value... 4) Without the intention of approaching the subject in a serious manner... 5) With the primary intention of simply generating numerous responses... 6) Seemingly for their own amusement or to frustrate other people. It's certainly not a perfect definition, but I would think that on the surface this would seem like something most people wouldn't want. The thing is each of these elements can be attacked and/or dealt with in the current Membership Agreement: 1) Starting and/or derailing multiple threads towards... The MA deals with flooding and derails. 2) Subjects that result in numerous responses... One measure of success in a forum is the number of posts. Lots of responses can be a good thing. If the number of responses is a "problem" then how much of the blame belongs to people who respond? 3) That are repetitive and/or offer little value... Value is in the eyes of the beholder, and repetition is determined by the reader. I know I get tired of repeating the same stuff to each new dowser (or whatever) but invariably it's new to somebody. What's "obvious" to some is often of value to others. Thus #3 can be good and bad at the same time. 4) Without the intention of approaching the subject in a serious manner... This does not preclude other members from approaching it in a serious manner in their responses nor does it preclude readers from reading the thread in a serious manner. The "troll" is not the only person involved. The MA already deals with going off topic, personalizing the thread, and being uncivil and impolite. 5) With the primary intention of simply generating numerous responses... The "troll's" intentions are irrelevant and virtually impossible to determine. Whenever I start a thread, I hope it gets a lot of responses. Some really long threads are fascinating reads. Disk space is not an issue, and the ignore feature works really well when it comes to avoiding certain threads. 6) Seemingly for their own amusement or to frustrate other people. The "troll's" amusement is irrelevant and virtually impossible to determine. Many people are amused by frustrating other people, especially when proving somebody wrong or pinning them in a corner and watching them squirm. Even if you call this behavior "sick" it can still be beneficial. Conclusion: I think I presented a reasonable list of the common elements of the behavior of a troll. Even if we could get a jury of 12 to agree on those factors, we still haven't established that the board would be better off making it against the rules because not all of the elements cause any real harm. That's why we would need one more element: 7) The board itself has decided that the threads don't offer any real value and are possibly detrimental to the success of the board. If you add this element, it's workable on sites limited to specific subjects where members generally agree on the big picture but discuss the details. For example, an NFL team fan site might invoke such a rule to keep out those idiots who come through posting, "You guys will never win a Super Bowl because everybody knows black quarterbacks are too stoopid." It would work on a discussion forum for Canon cameras where idiots periodically show up talking about how much better Nikon is. I've seen it work on sub-forums. On a prominent bass guitar website (bigger than this board) they have sub-forums devoted to certain makes of instruments. They don't let people dive into the Rickenbacker forum and tell people that Ric basses suck. Some still try, but the threads are quickly squashed. How did I do? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 110] Author : Akhenaten Date : 22nd May 2010 03:16 PM Good luck on anyone else who makes any effort to define what a troll is. I doubt you will fare any better than what I did in this thread. To prove me wrong just do it and see what happens. Since you issued the challenge, I'll give it a shot. Well, as nearly as I can determine what rjh01's requirement was, all you had to do to prove him wrong was to make the attempt, so I'd say you've succeeded. You will do better than me if anyone makes a suggestion on how to improve your definition. How did I do? I'd suggest that you might have used italics in the summarised list of definition points, to match the expanded list. Double-winner! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 111] Author : UncaYimmy Date : 22nd May 2010 03:33 PM Do I get a prize? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 112] Author : Akhenaten Date : 22nd May 2010 03:51 PM Do I get a prize? When he's finished with me . . . Even given that an acceptable definition might be possible, I am still strongly against removing trolls. They are our squeaky wheels. Tricky might give you a nice oiling. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 113] Author : zooterkin Date : 22nd May 2010 06:26 PM First off, the big mistake everyone is making is that a troll needs to be defined. Wrong. Trolling behavior needs to be defined. I completely agree; it's a point I was meaning to make, but I've been mostly offline this week. 1) Starting and/or derailing multiple threads towards... 2) Subjects that result in numerous responses... 3) That are repetitive and/or offer little value... 4) Without the intention of approaching the subject in a serious manner... 5) With the primary intention of simply generating numerous responses... 6) Seemingly for their own amusement or to frustrate other people. Good list; I think one aspect missing is that the views expressed are often objectionable to a significant proportion of the audience. I think that's going to be the case when the trolling is being complained about. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 114] Author : chillzero Date : 22nd May 2010 07:46 PM Good list; I think one aspect missing is that the views expressed are often objectionable to a significant proportion of the audience. I think that's going to be the case when the trolling is being complained about. Personally, I think that's when some of the best discussions can occur. Seriously, people sometimes need to be in discussion with a racist, or a homeophobe in order to understand what it is that they are fighting against. We are all meant to be skeptics, and encourage critical thinking. Therefore we do ourselves no favours by declaring people with unpopular opinions to be trolls, removing them from discussions and then carrying on our part of those discussions based on personal assumptions, popular assertions, and rumour. If a (for example) racist can stay within the rules, then they should be able to put forward their side of any discussion. Years and years ago at school we had a debating club, of which I was a keen member. We tried to have debates about the holocaust and racism, and other topics of those sorts. For some I decided to play devil's advocate and take the opposing podium where I felt I had enough understanding to support the debate regardless of my personal opinion of the matter. When permitted to do so (sometimes even the teacher felt it was wrong to allow anyone to speak such words), I found that people just do not want to hear viewpoints that they dislike, and prefer to shout down those they see as bigots .... learning nothing in the process. Debates on religion were very similar with a 'lalalala I can't hear you' approach to being told about available evidence that contradicts their position. Personally, I prefer to know and understand my demons, because then they lose something, and because I can also reassure myself that my stance is correct and based on known facts as much as possible. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 115] Author : UncaYimmy Date : 22nd May 2010 07:53 PM Good list; I think one aspect missing is that the views expressed are often objectionable to a significant proportion of the audience. I think that's going to be the case when the trolling is being complained about. Excellent point. For me that was implied in the "generates a lot of responses" part simply because most "consensus" oriented threads don't generate a lot of responses. Conflict generates a lot more responses (can you spell VFF?). Without your addition, my definition would include parody threads and "continuation" threads among others. Most people wouldn't call that trolling, yet they meet all of my conditions except the one you added. And thus we're back to, "We can't help ourselves from responding to certain types of posts with ideas we don't like, so we need a rule to make up for our lack of self-control because." ETA: How is the forum better off with such a rule? This one isn't. Others are, without a doubt. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 116] Author : arthwollipot Date : 22nd May 2010 11:45 PM No. There is a reasonable chance the five people do not like that poster` s opinion and they want to silence him/her. It is not even possible to talk about "trolls" unless there is a clear and practical definition of what a "troll" is, and I have not yet read about any such definition hereYes, you are right. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 117] Author : Debunker Date : 23rd May 2010 11:39 AM ..snip.. 7) The board itself has decided that the threads don't offer any real value and are possibly detrimental to the success of the board. ..snip.. So, it would be up to the board to define who is a troll and who is not? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 118] Author : UncaYimmy Date : 23rd May 2010 01:41 PM So, it would be up to the board to define who is a troll and who is not? What is trolling behavior, not who is a troll. There's a difference. Then it depends on what we mean by board. Most of the threads we see here about Sylvia Browne would be considered trolling on a pro-psychic board but not on this board. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 119] Author : Debunker Date : 23rd May 2010 04:21 PM What is trolling behavior, not who is a troll. There's a difference. ..snip.. I do not see that much of a difference. However.. So, it would be up to the board to define what is a trolling behavior and what is not? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 120] Author : UncaYimmy Date : 23rd May 2010 06:14 PM I do not see that much of a difference. Rules are designed to regulate behavior, not label people. The Membership Agreement has several rules in it, but we don't label anybody based on those rules. Why do you insist on labeling somebody a "troll" when the goal is to prohibit a certain kind of behavior? So, it would be up to the board to define what is a trolling behavior and what is not? Sigh. Did I not just tell you that it depends on the definition of board? Did you define board? No. I guess I have to do all the work. One of the key elements in defining trolling behavior is the subject matter used. Take two different members. Each makes posts that meets the criteria I outlined. If one member offers positions widely held or accepted on that board, he won't be called a troll by most people. If the other member does the same thing taking positions widely rejected by the membership, he's typically not considered a troll. Suppose we have a discussion board devoted to discussing beverages. If we have one forum devoted to soft drinks, then you would expect to see threads talking about how great/bad Coke/Pepsi are. Since everybody is interested in discussing soft drinks, it's really not a problem that these subjects keep coming up with both sides arguing their positions strongly. Suppose then that mods create two sub-forums under soft drinks: One for Pepsi and one for Coke. If somebody starts "Pepsi is better than Coke" threads in the Coke section, he'll get the same types of responses he used to get in the larger forum. Only now he's going to be considered a troll because the Coke crowd is sick and tired of this stupid argument because obviously Coke is better (this ties in to rjh01's attempts at using "wrong" opinions as a defining criterion). So, when you ask if the board "decides" what trolling is, the structure of the board and the opinions of the membership absolutely do influence it. Ultimately the people who make the rules on the forum get to decide if they prohibit that behavior. Some boards are autocratic (like this one) while others are ruled by popular opinion. Does that answer your question? As I said, it's not terribly hard to come up with a rule to prohibit trolling behavior so long as the board itself lends itself to that definition. Go to a Christian oriented board and start posting threads about atheism, and you're a troll. Go to an atheist's board and start evangelizing, and you're a troll. If you come to this board, the expectation is that both types of behavior should be acceptable because this board is set up to encourage debate over conflicting ideas. If you don't like religion as a example because it lacks "objective" facts, take science. There are boards where scholarly debate abounds. If you show up arguing that relativity is anything other than a self-consistent theory that has passed every test put to it, you're a troll. They don't like it because it sidetracks the board into ridiculous arguments that don't advance knowledge for the members. If you try the same thing here, you also get a large number of responses. Only on this board lots of members learn from the discussions because they are not scientists. It doesn't detract from the mission - it meets the mission of the board. On the other board a link to a scholarly article may result in detailed, technical discussions that go on for days. Here those posts get a few comments because only a handful of people are capable of discussing it at the level needed. This is why a "no trolling" rule doesn't belong here. The forums would suck if we tossed out all the cranks that came our way. However, on other boards, getting rid of people like that allows for their version of "productive" discussions to flourish. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 121] Author : Puppycow Date : 23rd May 2010 06:59 PM Does there come a point where trolling is in and of itself a violation of Rule 0? Some really egregious trolls appear here from time to time, they never post sources, they say ridiculous things, and they derail any and every topic they touch with utter stupidity. And its really hard to stay within Rule 12 with these guys. Sometimes I just need to walk away. And I know I am not the only one who feels like that. Learn to ignore them. There's even an ignore function to help you. What this forum really needs is less rules and people with thicker skins. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 122] Author : Debunker Date : 23rd May 2010 10:00 PM ..snip.. Suppose we have a discussion board devoted to discussing beverages. If we have one forum devoted to soft drinks, then you would expect to see threads talking about how great/bad Coke/Pepsi are. Since everybody is interested in discussing soft drinks, it's really not a problem that these subjects keep coming up with both sides arguing their positions strongly. If I speak about sugar in this forum, am I a troll? do I have a trolling behavior? Suppose then that mods create two sub-forums under soft drinks: One for Pepsi and one for Coke. If somebody starts "Pepsi is better than Coke" threads in the Coke section, he'll get the same types of responses he used to get in the larger forum. Only now he's going to be considered a troll because the Coke crowd is sick and tired of this stupid argument because obviously Coke is better (this ties in to rjh01's attempts at using "wrong" opinions as a defining criterion). Why is his argument "stupid"? Because other people in the forum do not agree with it? So, when you ask if the board "decides" what trolling is, the structure of the board and the opinions of the membership absolutely do influence it. Ultimately the people who make the rules on the forum get to decide if they prohibit that behavior. Some boards are autocratic (like this one) while others are ruled by popular opinion. OK. So, we agree that it is up to the board members to deem a behavior as trolling based on their personal opinions and not on strict rules Does that answer your question? As I said, it's not terribly hard to come up with a rule to prohibit trolling behavior so long as the board itself lends itself to that definition. Go to a Christian oriented board and start posting threads about atheism, and you're a troll. Go to an atheist's board and start evangelizing, and you're a troll. If you come to this board, the expectation is that both types of behavior should be acceptable because this board is set up to encourage debate over conflicting ideas. Why do you assume that this board is different from the Christian-oriented board, if you can not come out with a rule defining trolling behavior If you don't like religion as a example because it lacks "objective" facts, take science. There are boards where scholarly debate abounds. If you show up arguing that relativity is anything other than a self-consistent theory that has passed every test put to it, you're a troll. They don't like it because it sidetracks the board into ridiculous arguments that don't advance knowledge for the members. Maybe, you would be deemed as a troll here as well, if you argue the same If you try the same thing here, you also get a large number of responses. Only on this board lots of members learn from the discussions because they are not scientists. It doesn't detract from the mission - it meets the mission of the board. On the other board a link to a scholarly article may result in detailed, technical discussions that go on for days. Here those posts get a few comments because only a handful of people are capable of discussing it at the level needed. Again, why do you assume that the Christian-based forum is different than this one? This is why a "no trolling" rule doesn't belong here. The forums would suck if we tossed out all the cranks that came our way. However, on other boards, getting rid of people like that allows for their version of "productive" discussions to flourish. But there is a "no trolling" rule here. Even if it is not called really as such. Have you read the MA? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 123] Author : zooterkin Date : 24th May 2010 06:11 AM Personally, I think that's when some of the best discussions can occur. Seriously, people sometimes need to be in discussion with a racist, or a homeophobe in order to understand what it is that they are fighting against. We are all meant to be skeptics, and encourage critical thinking. Therefore we do ourselves no favours by declaring people with unpopular opinions to be trolls, removing them from discussions and then carrying on our part of those discussions based on personal assumptions, popular assertions, and rumour. If a (for example) racist can stay within the rules, then they should be able to put forward their side of any discussion. To be clear, I wasn't meaning to suggest that everyone with objectionable views was trolling, but that it was a factor in addition to the list that UncaYimmy itemised as making up trolling behaviour. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 124] Author : chillzero Date : 24th May 2010 06:22 AM To be clear, I wasn't meaning to suggest that everyone with objectionable views was trolling, but that it was a factor in addition to the list that UncaYimmy itemised as making up trolling behaviour. :) I understood that, as I know you a little. As you also know me, you'll know I have to speak up anyway. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 125] Author : quadraginta Date : 24th May 2010 06:41 AM To be clear, I wasn't meaning to suggest that everyone with objectionable views was trolling, but that it was a factor in addition to the list that UncaYimmy itemised as making up trolling behaviour. I think we've also pretty much established that everyone who is trolling doesn't necessarily have objectionable views. So we're really gunning only for the objectionable trolls, and the problem is who gets to choose what is objectionable. In simplest form what we're after here is more rules to keep out stuff we don't like. Maybe that's not such a good idea. I'm content with the balance as is. As others have pointed out there are plenty of refuges on the internet for people trying to avoid things they object to. This place doesn't need to be another one of them. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 126] Author : UncaYimmy Date : 24th May 2010 07:29 AM I think we've also pretty much established that everyone who is trolling doesn't necessarily have objectionable views. Funny. I think we've established quite the opposite. If the views aren't objectionable, then chances are there won't be many responses. Without a lot of responses, it's really not trolling. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 127] Author : UncaYimmy Date : 24th May 2010 08:48 AM If I speak about sugar in this forum, am I a troll? do I have a trolling behavior? It depends on the forum. Why is his argument "stupid"? Because other people in the forum do not agree with it? Yes. That's precisely it. OK. So, we agree that it is up to the board members to deem a behavior as trolling based on their personal opinions and not on strict rules The two are not mutually exclusive, but essentially, yes. Why do you assume that this board is different from the Christian-oriented board, if you can not come out with a rule defining trolling behavior I don't assume anything. I base my conclusions on my experience. If you want to debate the nature of this forum, that's fine. It should probably get its own thread. But there is a "no trolling" rule here. Even if it is not called really as such. Have you read the MA? The new rules and enforcement in Forum Management is pretty clearly an attempt at removing what they consider trolls. Only they call it people "gaming" the system. And they don't want to ban them, just remove them from FM. Without announcing it. Or allowing the person to appeal. Or allowing members to protest it. Outside of FM, I don't see it, but I spend my time in GS&P, Science, and Social Issues and rarely dabble elsewhere. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 128] Author : quadraginta Date : 24th May 2010 08:57 AM Funny. I think we've established quite the opposite. If the views aren't objectionable, then chances are there won't be many responses. Without a lot of responses, it's really not trolling. A post can be quite controversial, and elicit numerous responses, satisfying the traditional concepts of "trolling", without being intrinsically or even intentionally objectionable. I thought we had managed to get that part all sorted out. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 129] Author : Tricky Date : 24th May 2010 09:40 AM But there is a "no trolling" rule here. Even if it is not called really as such. Is there? Can we presume that you have come up with a consistent definition for a "troll"? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 130] Author : monoman Date : 24th May 2010 11:49 AM I was thinking billy goat. A troll is someone who posts in anticipation of a reaction rather than a response. They are clearly trying to "get one's goat" rather than advance a discussion. Rather than offering facts and other types of substantiation, they will attempt to escalate the emotional side of an argument, or deliberately hand-wave away points and simply reassert their assumptions. link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3796293#post3796293) That's official. Anyway, I don't think you can say go*t now, so I'll be reporting you. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 131] Author : UncaYimmy Date : 24th May 2010 01:07 PM A post can be quite controversial, and elicit numerous responses, satisfying the traditional concepts of "trolling", without being intrinsically or even intentionally objectionable. I thought we had managed to get that part all sorted out. Maybe you got that sorted out. I, and it would seem others, don't agree that you can define trolling without dealing with subject matter. Go back a few posts and check out my definition and Zooterkin's addition. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 132] Author : Debunker Date : 24th May 2010 10:52 PM Is there? Can we presume that you have come up with a consistent definition for a "troll"? I guess it is not called "antitrolling rule", but there is a rule 11, somewhere in the MA.. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 133] Author : Debunker Date : 24th May 2010 11:01 PM It depends on the forum. ..snip.. I do not understand (really). First you seem to claim that this forum is somehow different or better than the Christian based forum as here "both types of behavior should be acceptable because this board is set up to encourage debate over conflicting ideas", which means that, while the this forum should (would) not deem behavior as troll behavior due to the board` ideas and then you go out and agree that "behavior as trolling based on their personal opinions and not on strict rules", which to me seems to mean that the Christian-based forum and this forum are both having the same problem as defining trolling behavior according to their board members own opinions Or, maybe you were saying that this forum should encourage debate over conflicting ideas, but does not encourage debate over conflicting ideas?? I am little bit lost.. Therefore, [..coming back to the topic of this thread..] as for the need of an anti-trolling rule, do you think there is a need of an anti-trolling rule here and, if so, how would you define "trolling" in an operational way? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 134] Author : Darth Rotor Date : 24th May 2010 11:16 PM link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3796293#post3796293) Anyway, I don't think you can say go*t now, so I'll be reporting you. :goat I didn't say anything, honest! :eek: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 135] Author : UncaYimmy Date : 25th May 2010 07:32 AM @Debunker I am not saying this forum is "better" than another. What I'm saying is that "trolling" behavior is unwanted by the membership and/or the people who run the forum. A critical element of "unwanted trolling behavior" is subject matter. On some forums certain beliefs are in effect a "requirement" for participation. Consensus and cooperation are part of the mission. Challenging those beliefs would be considered trolling. On other boards that's not the case, so the same behavior would not be considered trolling. On this board the stated mission is to apply critical thinking, especially in regards to science and the paranormal. In order to meet that mission, we need posts to dissect. So while there will be pockets of people who view some posts as trolling, to remove those posts would work against the mission stated at the top of each page. Therefore, this board does not need an anti-trolling rule or stated another way, by definition you can't "troll" on this board. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 136] Author : Debunker Date : 25th May 2010 11:59 PM ..snip..On some forums certain beliefs are in effect a "requirement" for participation...snip.. Do you include this forum in the above "such forums"? Just to clarify your ideas -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 137] Author : Darth Rotor Date : 26th May 2010 06:29 AM @Debunker I am not saying this forum is "better" than another. What I'm saying is that "trolling" behavior is unwanted by the membership and/or the people who run the forum. A critical element of "unwanted trolling behavior" is subject matter. On some forums certain beliefs are in effect a "requirement" for participation. Consensus and cooperation are part of the mission. Challenging those beliefs would be considered trolling. On other boards that's not the case, so the same behavior would not be considered trolling. On this board the stated mission is to apply critical thinking, especially in regards to science and the paranormal. In order to meet that mission, we need posts to dissect. So while there will be pockets of people who view some posts as trolling, to remove those posts would work against the mission stated at the top of each page. Therefore, this board does not need an anti-trolling rule or stated another way, by definition you can't "troll" on this board. Well said. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 138] Author : UncaYimmy Date : 26th May 2010 02:22 PM Do you include this forum in the above "such forums"? Just to clarify your ideas No, but that's not a universal opinion, which is why some people think we need an anti-trolling rule. BenBurch started this thread, and a search of his posts indicates he likes to toss around the word troll in AGW and 911/CT threads. He also seemed to be calling somebody a troll in a thread about porn, but I wasn't quite sure who it was and didn't care enough to investigate. Two of the people I know he was calling a troll have been banned, so it would seem like a rule is not as necessary as he seems to think. There is consensus opinion on many topics in GS&P and Science. Sylvia Browne is bad, VFF can't see inside people, psychics should put up or shut up, relativity is correct, and the sun doesn't have an iron shell. Without people presenting opposite opinions, those sections would not be very active. As for cooperation, well, that's another matter. Sometimes skeptics argue about the best approach to take to get the message out. I've seen more than one member say that "we skeptics" shouldn't argue with one another publicly and that we're all on the same team. Fortunately, such comments are drowned out by people engaging in healthy debate. I think this forum (Forum Management) is the closest this board comes to a forum where consensus and cooperation outweigh critical thinking and debate. I think the other forums have that potential, but the membership (including devil's advocates) and the mods do a pretty good job of preventing it from overpowering the forum. Does that answer your question? If not, give me the answer you want me to give, and I'll go from there. No joking. I get the feeling you are leading me in some direction, which is fine. I'm just not getting it. I'd rather cut to the chase and either agree or disagree. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 139] Author : tsig Date : 27th May 2010 08:13 AM Trolls aren't the problem. It's those who insist on feeding them that's the problem. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 140] Author : Debunker Date : 27th May 2010 10:42 AM No, but that's not a universal opinion, which is why some people think we need an anti-trolling rule. BenBurch started this thread, and a search of his posts indicates he likes to toss around the word troll in AGW and 911/CT threads. He also seemed to be calling somebody a troll in a thread about porn, but I wasn't quite sure who it was and didn't care enough to investigate. Two of the people I know he was calling a troll have been banned, so it would seem like a rule is not as necessary as he seems to think. There is consensus opinion on many topics in GS&P and Science. Sylvia Browne is bad, VFF can't see inside people, psychics should put up or shut up, relativity is correct, and the sun doesn't have an iron shell. Without people presenting opposite opinions, those sections would not be very active. As for cooperation, well, that's another matter. Sometimes skeptics argue about the best approach to take to get the message out. I've seen more than one member say that "we skeptics" shouldn't argue with one another publicly and that we're all on the same team. Fortunately, such comments are drowned out by people engaging in healthy debate. I think this forum (Forum Management) is the closest this board comes to a forum where consensus and cooperation outweigh critical thinking and debate. I think the other forums have that potential, but the membership (including devil's advocates) and the mods do a pretty good job of preventing it from overpowering the forum. Does that answer your question? If not, give me the answer you want me to give, and I'll go from there. No joking. I get the feeling you are leading me in some direction, which is fine. I'm just not getting it. I'd rather cut to the chase and either agree or disagree. I think we disagree on two points: 1) I believe that in this forum there already is an anti-trolling rule, it is rule 11 of the MA. Yes, it is not formally called "anti-trolling rule", but can be used by the mods to kick out of the forum any people they think as (behaving as) troll. It is just enough for them to tell the "troll" that they are derailing the thread and, since there are arguments for at least 50% of the posts of this forum to be considered somehow off-topic, the job is done. Do not believe? In the last few posts, we spoke about the Christian-based forum, which is an argument off-topic. A moderator could see that as a breach of rule 11, if they wanted to, and kick us out of the forum for a few days. Same thing they can do with anybody they believe behaves as troll. No other rules are needed. 2) This is why this forum is not fundamentally different from the Christian-based forum. They both can kick you out for "trolling", in one forum trolling= supporting too much atheism, in this forum it can be going too much against evolution. The game is slightly different, but the rules are the same. I hope I have clarified where I want to "lead" you :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 141] Author : Tricky Date : 27th May 2010 11:50 AM I believe that in this forum there already is an anti-trolling rule, it is rule 11 of the MA. Yes, it is not formally called "anti-trolling rule", but can be used by the mods to kick out of the forum any people they think as (behaving as) troll. It is just enough for them to tell the "troll" that they are derailing the thread and, since there are arguments for at least 50% of the posts of this forum to be considered somehow off-topic, the job is done. Do not believe? You make a valid point, but since we have no good definition of "trolling", what I suggest is that rule 11 is quite often enforced in ways that affect the members that many people call "trolls". It is true that one of the most ubiquitous things about all attempted definitions of the word is to include "single-mindedness". However, this is not always true. Sometimes a person is called a troll simply because they are nasty about whatever topic they discuss, even if it is a wide variety of topics. But I don't deny that rule 11 was inserted to limit certain kinds of behavior that are typical of what you may call "trolls". However, members that are not called "trolls" may also behave in this manner, and they are modded the same way with the same rule. Indeed, the impetus behind the rule was the practice of "kittening" and "recipe-ing" threads in which an unpopular member was posting. This was done by many otherwise highly respected members. That sort of thing is still attempted. So yes, the rules do in fact limit the freedom of so-called "trolls" more so than they do other members. And that's not a bad thing. But it is well worth re-emphasizing that no member is ruled against because he has been identified by one member or many members as a "troll". They are ruled against because of behavior only. What you seem to be saying is that a "troll" cannot keep within the membership agreement. I would suggest that we have a number of long-time members that have been called "trolls" many times, but who manage to keep within the MA. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 142] Author : zooterkin Date : 27th May 2010 04:36 PM I think we disagree on two points: 1) I believe that in this forum there already is an anti-trolling rule, it is rule 11 of the MA. Yes, it is not formally called "anti-trolling rule", but can be used by the mods to kick out of the forum any people they think as (behaving as) troll. How does that work in the case where the 'troll' started the thread? Why do you assume trolling is necessarily off-topic? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 143] Author : rjh01 Date : 27th May 2010 05:23 PM How does that work in the case where the 'troll' started the thread? Why do you assume trolling is necessarily off-topic? If a troll starts a thread with an OP that can be interpreted as "feed me" does it matter what happens next? If many posters then feed the troll then everyone is happy. If everyone ignores the troll then only the troll is upset. On the other hand 1. If people do not know they are feeding a troll then that is a waste of their time. 2. If there are too many such threads then it pushes other threads off the first page. 3. A lurker finding the thread later may get some wrong ideas. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 144] Author : Debunker Date : 27th May 2010 07:50 PM How does that work in the case where the 'troll' started the thread? Why do you assume trolling is necessarily off-topic? I did not. What I said is that, if you are a mod and do not like one guy because he/she behaves like a troll or for whatever reason, you can claim that some of his/her posts are off-topic (and I bet you can find posts that can be considered somehow off-topic of any member of this forum, me included) and then kick him/her out. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 145] Author : Debunker Date : 27th May 2010 07:58 PM You make a valid point, but since we have no good definition of "trolling", what I suggest is that rule 11 is quite often enforced in ways that affect the members that many people call "trolls". It is true that one of the most ubiquitous things about all attempted definitions of the word is to include "single-mindedness". However, this is not always true. Sometimes a person is called a troll simply because they are nasty about whatever topic they discuss, even if it is a wide variety of topics. But I don't deny that rule 11 was inserted to limit certain kinds of behavior that are typical of what you may call "trolls". However, members that are not called "trolls" may also behave in this manner, and they are modded the same way with the same rule. Indeed, the impetus behind the rule was the practice of "kittening" and "recipe-ing" threads in which an unpopular member was posting. This was done by many otherwise highly respected members. That sort of thing is still attempted. So yes, the rules do in fact limit the freedom of so-called "trolls" more so than they do other members. And that's not a bad thing. But it is well worth re-emphasizing that no member is ruled against because he has been identified by one member or many members as a "troll". They are ruled against because of behavior only. What you seem to be saying is that a "troll" cannot keep within the membership agreement. I would suggest that we have a number of long-time members that have been called "trolls" many times, but who manage to keep within the MA. This post is self-contradictory in many parts. When you say: "that no member is ruled against because he has been identified by one member or many members as a "troll"" and: "They are ruled against because of behavior only" Since there are no strict rules on this forum, what would be the difference?? That in the second case, the person who evaluates the behaviour is not a simple member but a mod? When you say: "However, members that are not called "trolls" may also behave in this manner, and they are modded the same way with the same rule." If we agree that there is no strict criteria to define who a troll is, and who is not, why do you make such distinction?? As for me 1) you can not even speak "formally" about trolls, unless you are able to give a clear criterion to define who a troll is, and so far I have seen none 2) the mods can already kick out a person, as they believe he/she is a troll, or for whatever other reason, simply calling rule 11. So, going back to base one, no need of an anti-trolling rule, as it is already there. Then, it is eventually up to the mods not to enforce it against people they see as trolls even if they could. But the rule is already there and ready to be used -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 146] Author : zooterkin Date : 27th May 2010 08:10 PM I did not. What I said is that, if you are a mod and do not like one guy because he/she behaves like a troll or for whatever reason, you can claim that some of his/her posts are off-topic (and I bet you can find posts that can be considered somehow off-topic of any member of this forum, me included) and then kick him/her out. I can think of all sorts of things that might happen. Are you suggesting that this has happened? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 147] Author : Tricky Date : 27th May 2010 10:37 PM The mods can already kick out a person, as they believe he/she is a troll, or for whatever other reason, simply calling rule 11. So, going back to base one, no need of an anti-trolling rule, as it is already there. Then, it is eventually up to the mods not to enforce it against people they see as trolls even if they could. But the rule is already there and ready to be used Whatever private definitions for "troll" a moderators and administrators may have, they (administrators) can only kick out a person for rules violations. Whether or not a particular mod or admin personally believes the person is a troll is of no consequence. No one can be kicked out for being a troll, since there is no rule against being a troll. Speaking only for myself, I do not personally call anyone a troll, though I do recognize that others do uses this term, and I know that there are a wide group of behaviors they associate with the ones they call trolls. So if I don't believe it is possible to positively identify anyone as a troll, how could I possibly kick someone out (assuming I was an admin) for being a troll? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 148] Author : Skwinty Date : 28th May 2010 03:03 AM Look at the Absinthe thread. I was called a troll there. Was it deserved? Did I behave badly? Did luchog behave badly? In my opinion it's a storm in a tot glass, no big deal:) ETA: Does there need to be a rule against it? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 149] Author : UncaYimmy Date : 28th May 2010 04:52 AM Whatever private definitions for "troll" a moderators and administrators may have, they (administrators) can only kick out a person for rules violations. Whether or not a particular mod or admin personally believes the person is a troll is of no consequence. No one can be kicked out for being a troll, since there is no rule against being a troll. Speaking only for myself, I do not personally call anyone a troll, though I do recognize that others do uses this term, and I know that there are a wide group of behaviors they associate with the ones they call trolls. So if I don't believe it is possible to positively identify anyone as a troll, how could I possibly kick someone out (assuming I was an admin) for being a troll? It can be done. * Apply Rule 11 to the offender in ways it is not ordinarily applied to other members but still "justifiable." * Judge their posts to be uncivil or "personalizing" the discussion in ways not ordinarily applied to other members and respond that it's "borderline" and subject to individual judgment and, well, you know, nobody's perfect. * Use moderator "discretion" to redact their posts for Rule 0 and Rule 12 violations even though comments by other members far more offensive are not redacted. This prevents the offender from arguing bias since the comments cannot even be linked to on another site much less examined in a public FM thread. * Hand out infractions instead of mod boxes for their offenses because, well, they're the same, right? * When other members are uncivil or personally attack this member, don't hand out infractions or remove the offending posts. Instead, post a mod box (because that's the same, right?) directing people in general, including the attacked member, to be nice. * Give the offender a moderator directive that is unreasonable or not covered by the rules and suspend them when they violate the directive. Jeff Wagg has made it a point to say that admins can invent whatever directives they want, and we had better obey. * Once an offender has received several infractions and maybe been suspended a few times, claim that the posts they write don't mean what they say because the mods have "context" that this person is trying to get around the rules. In other words lower the evidence bar once someone has received negative attention from the mods. * Publicly state that the member is a detriment to the forum and is paranoid or dishonest. This has the effect of encouraging members to report posts by this person and to bait that person. * When the member asks questions or complains in FM, give cryptic answers and close the thread ASAP (or just ignore them). If they bring it up again, even in passing, suspend them. * While suspending a member, notice that their personal information looks "suspicious" and demand they provide proof of identity. All of these tactics can be used to deal with a member considered NOKD (Not Our Kind, Dear). If the member loses their cool due to frustration with this biased yet "justifiable" treatment, they can be suspended or banned. With any luck they simply leave quietly or better still, unregister their account. There doesn't need to be an official declaration of a person being a troll. Hell, the mods and admins may not even realize they are doing it - loss of perspective is very common on boards where those in charge are allowed to sit for far too long. It's even more likely to happen when the membership has a severely restricted avenue for pointing out loss of perspective. The lack of an anti-trolling rule simply makes it more difficult to get rid of NOKD members. It doesn't prevent it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 150] Author : Debunker Date : 29th May 2010 11:27 AM Whatever private definitions for "troll" a moderators and administrators may have, they (administrators) can only kick out a person for rules violations. And since the rules are not well defined (we can agree on this, I hope), people can be kicked out because of anything Whether or not a particular mod or admin personally believes the person is a troll is of no consequence. Evidence? No one can be kicked out for being a troll, since there is no rule against being a troll. There is also no rule that protect potential "trolls" (or people with trolling behavior, let`s say it like Uncayimmy likes ) or any other people from being kicked out from the forum with any pretext. Speaking only for myself, I do not personally call anyone a troll, though I do recognize that others do uses this term, and I know that there are a wide group of behaviors they associate with the ones they call trolls. I think you are splitting the hair in four So if I don't believe it is possible to positively identify anyone as a troll, how could I possibly kick someone out (assuming I was an admin) for being a troll? You do not kick him out formally for being a troll. You kick him out as you do not like and you find the pretext that he or she went off-topic or derailed a thread. Since there is no practical specification on what it means derailing a thread, any one can be accused for this and kicked out from the forum. I hope my point of view is clearer now. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 151] Author : Debunker Date : 29th May 2010 11:30 AM I can think of all sorts of things that might happen. Are you suggesting that this has happened? Again, this is a nonclear question. What are the "things" that have or have not happened? We all have different points of view, so what you believe it was a good infraction, for me it was not, and the other way around. It is little bit like in dictatorships with unlimited power for the dictator. When you accuse the dictator of being a dictator his supporters can always say that the dictator always behaved well (even if he killed people, it was necessary). Are you suggesting that the dictator behaved wrongly? Please, prove it! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 152] Author : Tricky Date : 29th May 2010 01:44 PM And since the rules are not well defined (we can agree on this, I hope), people can be kicked out because of anything. Althought the rules do indeed allow for judgment on the part of the mods, it is not as if they work in a vacuum, and they do discuss among themselves what is appropriate. I think to say that a person can be kicked out for "anything" is very much an overstatement. Indeed, it is easy to tell which members are skirting the edge. Yet many skirt successfully. Generally speaking, the overwhelming majority of people get kicked out for failing to respond to direction. Almost nobody gets kicked out for the first failure to follow the MA, nor the second nor third. It takes a determined effort to get kicked out here. Evidence? Evidence of what mods and admins believe? I don't think I can provide you their brain scans. However I will tell you this in all honesty. The word "troll" virtually never comes up in the Sooper Sekrit Mod Area. If it does, it is usually saying, "There is no rule against trolling". In the year-and-a-half I've been a mod, trolling has never been an issue, other than to ask what people mean by it. I can't provide you my brains scan to prove to you that I'm telling the truth, so I'll just rely on the hope that my word will be enough. I think you are splitting the hair in four. Not at all. You want to call the people who habitually run afoul of the rule here "trolls", then feel free to do so. But that's your definition, not mine. If the people that you call "trolls" wind up getting punished for their behaviors, then it is true that what you call "troll" and what I call "behavior against the MA" may overlap. But that doesn't mean they are the same thing. We have fundamentalists here, CT believers, one-issue political observers, far left, far right and people with all sorts of other beliefs here which seem to be able to stay withing the MA. If you are saying that we have "unspoken" rules against "trolls", then how do all those people manage to stay here and in good standing? Shouldn't our unspoken rules be getting rid of them? You do not kick him out formally for being a troll. You kick him out as you do not like and you find the pretext that he or she went off-topic or derailed a thread. Since there is no practical specification on what it means derailing a thread, any one can be accused for this and kicked out from the forum. I hope my point of view is clearer now. There is no doubt that the ruling on thread derailment is a judgment call, but it is not one that is a knee-jerk reaction. These things are discussed and examples are given and warnings/infractions/suspensions are given. It is not just "don't say this or we'll kick you out". We've had a number of members who got various levels of punishment for derailing threads who have since learned where the lines are. They are still here. And if a member who has been punished is unsure where they went over the line, they can ask. Many have. Many have figured it out. Not all. In my opinion, you have to be pretty much blind to mod directives to be kicked out here. Look at the record of any banned member and you'll almost always find many many infractions, or a few very strongly worded ones. Can you get banned for habitually derailing here? Yes you can. Can you get banned for habitually insulting here? Yes you can. Can you get banned for habitually spamming here? Yes you can. Can you get banned for habitually hotlinking here? Yes you can. All of these are behaviors. If you choose to call them "trolling", then do so if you must. I tend to avoid such labels, so if you tell me I'm modding someone for "trolling", remember that is is your label, not mine. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 153] Author : UncaYimmy Date : 29th May 2010 01:51 PM I can think of all sorts of things that might happen. Are you suggesting that this has happened? Honestly, it's pretty hard prove, but I'll give you an example of a situation that is currently in progress where in my opinion somebody has been labeled a troll by the membership and the moderation path doesn't look like it's going to end well. The first post in the thread in question was: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=175841 Talk of alternative fuel sources is rarely followed by talk of the potential political fallout. What happens when oil dependant countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq lose such an important source of income? Economic collapse? War? Discussion went on for about a page and a member chimed in with: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5944308#post5944308 Israel will take them over. We have been preparing for this since 1897 Long Live Israel. For this the member received a Rule 11 infraction. :jaw-dropp The notion of Israel taking over the Middle East when they lose their oil wealth is off topic? Huh? Even the OP said about that post: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5944172#post5944172 Your answer was relevant (though creepy). I was bemoaning the fact this thread will turn into a critique on you rather than a discussion of the topic at hand. I don't care how many times you've inappropriately brought up Israel, if ever there's a time it's okay to say "Israel will take over the Middle East" is when somebody asks, "What's gonna happen when the world doesn't need oil from the Middle East any longer?" To rule otherwise judges the person a troll rather than the specific behavior as against the rules. What happens after that is the next time somebody reports a post by this member as being off-topic about Israel, the mod sees that the member has already received an infraction for the very same thing. That means the member loses the "benefit of the doubt" and receives an infraction. Then the time after that when somebody reports a post, there's even less benefit of the doubt and the member might get suspended for "multiple violations of Rule 11" when in fact it was one inappropriate ruling and two "borderline" posts. To make matters worse, look at the other posts that were moved to AAH and thus seen by the moderator handling the report. DC: Called him a "judenhasser" and said, "i think you are antisemitic scum. and in no way a jew." Lionking: "No, a particularly annoying troll. Most forums have rules about trolls. Alas this one doesn't." Zep: "Another lying troll for my IGNORE list. Mazel tov, idiot." All three of these were clearly personal attacks, yet none resulted in an infraction. All three were very clearly violations of Rule 11, yet none resulted in an infraction. I'm sure there will be rationalization that moving the posts was good enough, but I'm just not buying it. I can certainly see this member feeling ostracized by the membership with tacit approval from the moderators. This can lead to frustration and feelings of persecution. So rather than try to modify their behavior, they figure, "WTF. I might as well go out in a blaze of glory." This, of course, confirms everyone's suspicions that the person was a troll all along. And then people start threads here saying, "We need anti-trolling rules to deal with these people!" To avoid this post from being judged off-topic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176403), Debunker said, "What I said is that, if you are a mod and do not like one guy because he/she behaves like a troll or for whatever reason, you can claim that some of his/her posts are off-topic (and I bet you can find posts that can be considered somehow off-topic of any member of this forum, me included) and then kick him/her out." You asked for an example, and I'm giving you an example that is only a few steps away from being what Debunker described. Finding one from start to finish would be a lot of work, so this is all I'm prepared to show. Debunker's claim is plausible. The mechanisms exist, and the behavior of the moderators, which could be innocent and sincere, has been demonstrated. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 154] Author : Debunker Date : 30th May 2010 12:05 PM Althought the rules do indeed allow for judgment on the part of the mods, it is not as if they work in a vacuum, and they do discuss among themselves what is appropriate. Does not change my point, I believe I think to say that a person can be kicked out for "anything" is very much an overstatement. We have two different opinions Indeed, it is easy to tell which members are skirting the edge. Yet many skirt successfully. Since there is no clear "edge" to skirt (as it is not clearly defined by any rules), this sentence does not mean much Generally speaking, the overwhelming majority of people get kicked out for failing to respond to direction. Almost nobody gets kicked out for the first failure to follow the MA, nor the second nor third. As I said, there is no operational criterion to decide if a person is following or not the MA It takes a determined effort to get kicked out here. Your opinion Evidence of what mods and admins believe? I don't think I can provide you their brain scans. However I will tell you this in all honesty. The word "troll" virtually never comes up in the Sooper Sekrit Mod Area. If it does, it is usually saying, "There is no rule against trolling". In the year-and-a-half I've been a mod, trolling has never been an issue, other than to ask what people mean by it. I can't provide you my brains scan to prove to you that I'm telling the truth, so I'll just rely on the hope that my word will be enough. You may genuinely believe what you say, but this does not change the gist of my point Not at all. You want to call the people who habitually run afoul of the rule here "trolls", then feel free to do so. But that's your definition, not mine. If the people that you call "trolls" wind up getting punished for their behaviors, then it is true that what you call "troll" and what I call "behavior against the MA" may overlap. But that doesn't mean they are the same thing. We have fundamentalists here, CT believers, one-issue political observers, far left, far right and people with all sorts of other beliefs here which seem to be able to stay withing the MA. If you are saying that we have "unspoken" rules against "trolls", then how do all those people manage to stay here and in good standing? Shouldn't our unspoken rules be getting rid of them? Not necessarily. You may be OK (for reasons we may consider) with some of the people you consider as trolls, and not be OK with others. It all depends on who you want or do not want to kick out. I did not say that you automatically kick out every one you may consider as troll There is no doubt that the ruling on thread derailment is a judgment call, but it is not one that is a knee-jerk reaction. These things are discussed and examples are given and warnings/infractions/suspensions are given. It is not just "don't say this or we'll kick you out". We've had a number of members who got various levels of punishment for derailing threads who have since learned where the lines are. They are still here. And if a member who has been punished is unsure where they went over the line, they can ask. Many have. Many have figured it out. Not all. Things are discussed and examples are given, yes, but at the end it is the mods who decide using what you admit being a judgment call. There are various levels of punishment. In what point does this change what I am discussing? In my opinion, you have to be pretty much blind to mod directives to be kicked out here. Look at the record of any banned member and you'll almost always find many many infractions, or a few very strongly worded ones. Again, this does not change what the point is. If you want to kick out a member for being a troll, or for whatever other reason, you can kick him out immediately or giving him/her 20 warning first, but this does not change the point I am making. Kicking a person out from here is a judgment call Can you get banned for habitually derailing here? Yes you can. Can you get banned for habitually insulting here? Yes you can. Can you get banned for habitually spamming here? Yes you can. Can you get banned for habitually hotlinking here? Yes you can. Can you get banned if some mods do not like you? Yes you can. All of these are behaviors. If you choose to call them "trolling", then do so if you must. I tend to avoid such labels, so if you tell me I'm modding someone for "trolling", remember that is is your label, not mine. Wrong. "Derailing", for example, is not a behavior unless there will be a clear and operative definition of what derailing means. We will agree that there is not such a definition -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 155] Author : Debunker Date : 30th May 2010 12:09 PM ..snip.. To avoid this post from being judged off-topic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176403), Debunker said, "What I said is that, if you are a mod and do not like one guy because he/she behaves like a troll or for whatever reason, you can claim that some of his/her posts are off-topic (and I bet you can find posts that can be considered somehow off-topic of any member of this forum, me included) and then kick him/her out." You asked for an example, and I'm giving you an example that is only a few steps away from being what Debunker described. Finding one from start to finish would be a lot of work, so this is all I'm prepared to show. Debunker's claim is plausible. The mechanisms exist, and the behavior of the moderators, which could be innocent and sincere, has been demonstrated. Just for the record. I strongly invite you not to spend too much time looking for an appropriate example, as you point is clear enough and if people do not want to listen 1000 examples would still not be enough -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 156] Author : zooterkin Date : 30th May 2010 05:57 PM You asked for an example, and I'm giving you an example that is only a few steps away from being what Debunker described. Finding one from start to finish would be a lot of work, so this is all I'm prepared to show. Debunker's claim is plausible. The mechanisms exist, and the behavior of the moderators, which could be innocent and sincere, has been demonstrated. I hesitate to reply while someone is unable to respond, but I asked if it had happened, not if it was plausible, or if it had nearly happened. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 157] Author : arthwollipot Date : 30th May 2010 11:48 PM We have two different opinionsWow. Two people with two opinions. What were the chances of that? Let's look at which opinions on this particular question, which I restate as "are bannings arbitrary?" carry more weight. One opinion is from a person who has almost twenty nine thousand posts on the forum, and has been directly involved in the process of forum moderation for some years. The other is from someone who hasn't, and who has less than sixty posts. Going on experience alone, I think that the authority (such as it is) comes down pretty heavily on Tricky's side. Let me put it simply. Tricky knows what he is talking about. Debunker says bannings are arbitrary. Tricky says they aren't. I believe Tricky. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 158] Author : Tricky Date : 31st May 2010 02:24 AM You may be OK (for reasons we may consider) with some of the people you consider as trolls, and not be OK with others. As I've said, I don't consider any members as trolls. It all depends on who you want or do not want to kick out. The decision to kick someone out is made by admins with input from mods and considering the reports and posts of regular members. Things are discussed and examples are given, yes, but at the end it is the mods who decide using what you admit being a judgment call. Of course it is. We use human mods. Even if it were a formula based on numbers and severity of infraction, suspensions etc. (which has been discussed and widely rejected) it would still be judgment calls because individuals still decide the input. In the absence of an artificial intelligence or anonymous Danish mods, I don't think there is a way around this. The best you can hope for is that the mods and admins try very hard to be fair. I think the JREF succeeds at this better than many places. YMMV. Can you get banned if some mods do not like you? Yes you can. Yes, you can get banned IF the mods don't like you. You can also get banned IF you are a Mason or IF you have fantasies about goats. But you cannot get banned BECAUSE the mods don't like you. "Derailing", for example, is not a behavior unless there will be a clear and operative definition of what derailing means. We will agree that there is not such a definition Do you suggest that it is possible to define "derailing" in a way which leaves no ambiguity whatsoever? If so, we'd love to hear it. Lacking that, the best way is to inform someone when they are being judged to be derailing and then they will know to stop it. If a person has a question about what they were doing that was derailing, they can ask and it will almost always be answered. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 159] Author : Debunker Date : 31st May 2010 09:00 AM ..noticing that you replied to about half of my points, but thats OK.. As I've said, I don't consider any members as trolls. I will rephrase my sentence: You may be OK (for reasons we may consider) with some of the people you consider as trolls breaching the MA, and not be OK with others. It all depends on who you want or do not want to kick out. The decision to kick someone out is made by admins with input from mods and considering the reports and posts of regular members. Which does not change one comma of what I was saying. The decision of kicking someone out (or to sanction him) is more or less a total judgment call based on some vague guidelines and on the hope that the people in charge may behave consistently, or at least, that they try to Of course it is. We use human mods. Even if it were a formula based on numbers and severity of infraction, suspensions etc. (which has been discussed and widely rejected) it would still be judgment calls because individuals still decide the input. In the absence of an artificial intelligence or anonymous Danish mods, I don't think there is a way around this. The best you can hope for is that the mods and admins try very hard to be fair. I think the JREF succeeds at this better than many places. YMMV. I assume YMMV means something "in my own opinion" or something like that. Yes, it is only your opinion. And I do not agree with what you have written above. As in my opinion, in this forum no rule should be enforced if such rule can not be defined in a clear and operational way. If you can not find a way to define a rule in a clear way so that you can guarantee that the rule will be applied fairly among all members, then, there should not be such a rule. It should be up to you and the people in charge to find a way to define each rule in a way that leaves out ambiguities and suspects of unfair treatments as much as possible. At least, this should happen in a forum that is supposed to be a forum of skeptics. If rules of this forum are so unclearly defined that they leave the mods the power to kick out everyone they do not like, than this forum is not much different from the Intergralist Christian-based forum (see my posts with Uncayimmi) Yes, you can get banned IF the mods don't like you. You can also get banned IF you are a Mason or IF you have fantasies about goats. But you cannot get banned BECAUSE the mods don't like you. I disagree with this last sentence. Could you provide me with evidence of the fact that you can not get banned because mods do not like you? Do you suggest that it is possible to define "derailing" in a way which leaves no ambiguity whatsoever? If so, we'd love to hear it. Cart-and-horse inversion, in my opinion. It is up to the people who run the forum to define the rules in a unambiguous enough way, not to the people who post. As I said, if there is no way to do so, then it should be more appropriate not to have such rule Lacking that, the best way is to inform someone when they are being judged to be derailing and then they will know to stop it. If a person has a question about what they were doing that was derailing, they can ask and it will almost always be answered. Not change my point, again. You can always find good excuses reasons for any kind of behavior of the mods, lacking proper clear rules -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 160] Author : Debunker Date : 31st May 2010 09:03 AM ..snip.. Let me put it simply. Tricky knows what he is talking about. Debunker says bannings are arbitrary. Tricky says they aren't. I believe Tricky. Wow!! Very skeptic attitude! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 161] Author : Akhenaten Date : 31st May 2010 09:12 AM ..snip.. Let me put it simply. Tricky knows what he is talking about. Debunker says bannings are arbitrary. Tricky says they aren't. I believe Tricky. Wow!! Very skeptic attitude! The word you're looking for is 'skeptical', but you'd still be wrong. It's the voice of experience, in fact, and newcomers would be well-advised to take heed of it on occasion, lest they make fools of themselves with poorly constructed, already-refuted arguments. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 162] Author : Tricky Date : 31st May 2010 11:20 AM ..noticing that you replied to about half of my points, but thats OK... Yeah. Some seemed moot or already covered. I will rephrase my sentence: You may be OK (for reasons we may consider) with some of the people you consider as trolls breaching the MA, and not be OK with others. It all depends on who you want or do not want to kick out. Well yes. We want to kick out the ones who have had multiple or serious breaches of the Membership Agreement. Not because they are trolls. That much is quite clear. Lots of people have breached the MA. (I have a few infractions myself.) We don't kick them all out. Which does not change one comma of what I was saying. The decision of kicking someone out (or to sanction him) is more or less a total judgment call based on some vague guidelines and on the hope that the people in charge may behave consistently, or at least, that they try to. Normally, the mods try to explain why they have exercised their judgment in the way they have. While it may be "vague", specifics are usually explained. I assume YMMV means something "in my own opinion" or something like that. Yes. Stands for "Your mileage may vary." Yes, it is only your opinion. And I do not agree with what you have written above. As in my opinion, in this forum no rule should be enforced if such rule can not be defined in a clear and operational way. If you can not find a way to define a rule in a clear way so that you can guarantee that the rule will be applied fairly among all members, then, there should not be such a rule. It should be up to you and the people in charge to find a way to define each rule in a way that leaves out ambiguities and suspects of unfair treatments as much as possible. At least, this should happen in a forum that is supposed to be a forum of skeptics. I understand your opinion, and I must disagree. We've had this discussion many times here. In order to define a rule that leaves out ambiguities, you would have to specifically outline what to do in every conceivable situation. Such a set of rules would fill many page, or even books, and would still not guarantee that there would be no ambiguities. And such a document would be more-or-less ignored by the members and unusable by mods. Mods would become legal assistants, poring over the minutiae of every little article of the Membership Agreement. Rulings would take days to make sure we weren't being ambiguous. Instead, the decision was made to use loose guidelines and trust a set of moderators and administrators to interpret them as best they can. No, it's not as "fair" as a courtroom, but then, courts cost a lot of money and take a lot of time. Are you willing to wait for days or weeks before getting a decision? Are you willing to pay the mods to do legal research? The system here is not perfectly fair, and I don't think anyone in the JREF denies that. It relies on fallible humans and trusts them to be as fair as they can. If rules of this forum are so un-cleanly defined that they leave the mods the power to kick out everyone they do not like, than this forum is not much different from the Intergralist Christian-based forum (see my posts with Uncayimmi) It is different because our Membership Agreement makes it clear that we are instructed to mod for behavior, not for beliefs. A look at the wide variety of beliefs that are regularly posted here will demonstrate that the instructions are being followed as best we can. You can say there is a god and you can say there is no god here. Can you do that in the IC forum? I disagree with this last sentence. Could you provide me with evidence of the fact that you can not get banned because mods do not like you? I can show you where mods and admins have had arguments with members in which they have strongly taken one side against un-banned members. I can show you were mod decisions have protected people who are unpopular. But no, I can't "prove" it to you. Can you prove to me that people have been banned for "not being liked" as opposed to membership violations? The charge that Mods and Admins do this is yours. You have the burden of evidence. Cart-and-horse inversion, in my opinion. It is up to the people who run the forum to define the rules in a unambiguous enough way, not to the people who post. No, it is not. It is up to the people who click "accept" on the membership agreement to actually accept the rules. However, we do take suggestions. If you can define "derailing" in an unambiguous way that covers every possible scenario yet doesn't require a legal document that would take half an hour to read, then you are invited to submit it as a suggestion. If you can't, then you have little cause for blaming JREF because they haven't. Not change my point, again. You can always find good excuses reasons for any kind of behavior of the mods, lacking proper clear rules. Of course you can say that. But if you're saying we do, then you will have to provide evidence. Now, dropping my mod hat for a moment, I will say, just as Tricky, that I do not agree with every decision made here. I think if you asked around, you would see that is true. I have more than once spoken out when I felt a rule was being applied wrongly. But I will say without hesitation that those who applied the rule wrongly (in my opinion) were doing so simply because they interpreted things differently than me, not because they were seeking vengeance against someone. That is my experience when I was a regular member, and that is my experience as a mod. It is not a perfect place. But it's a damn good one, in my opinion. YMMV. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 163] Author : arthwollipot Date : 31st May 2010 07:13 PM Wow!! Very skeptic attitude!Being skeptical does not mean that you deny all authority figures. In fact, that's a very un-skeptical attitude. A good skeptic knows when an expert is an expert and can be trusted. I have personally interacted with Tricky many times in the (how many?) five and a half years I've been posting here, and he has earned my trust and respect. He does know what he's talking about. That's all I'll say. This isn't my argument. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 164] Author : Debunker Date : 1st June 2010 12:30 AM ..snip.. Well yes. We want to kick out the ones who have had multiple or serious breaches of the Membership Agreement. Not because they are trolls. That much is quite clear. Lots of people have breached the MA. (I have a few infractions myself.) We don't kick them all out. I never said you kick them all out. Can you give me evidence that you do not kick people out "because they are trolls"? Normally, the mods try to explain why they have exercised their judgment in the way they have. While it may be "vague", specifics are usually explained. As I said, without clear rules, excuses can be found for any mods behaviour (or mis-behaviour) I understand your opinion, and I must disagree. We've had this discussion many times here. In order to define a rule that leaves out ambiguities, you would have to specifically outline what to do in every conceivable situation. Such a set of rules would fill many page, or even books, and would still not guarantee that there would be no ambiguities. And such a document would be more-or-less ignored by the members and unusable by mods. Mods would become legal assistants, poring over the minutiae of every little article of the Membership Agreement. Rulings would take days to make sure we weren't being ambiguous. I do not think that necessarily a clear rule should take pages. But, even if it does, in a forum of skeptics, it is up to the people who run the forum to come out with clear rules or, if they can not write rules that are not clear enough in an operative way, there should be no rule Instead, the decision was made to use loose guidelines and trust a set of moderators and administrators to interpret them as best they can. What does it mean "as best as they can"? What is a good way to interpret a rule for you, can not be a good way for me. Even assuming that really mods never abuse their power. No, it's not as "fair" as a courtroom, but then, courts cost a lot of money and take a lot of time. Are you willing to wait for days or weeks before getting a decision? Are you willing to pay the mods to do legal research? I do not think you need to open a courtroom to moderate the forum according to clear rules The system here is not perfectly fair, and I don't think anyone in the JREF denies that. It relies on fallible humans and trusts them to be as fair as they can. Agreed. More or less (as I have tried to explain to Uncayimmi), as in the Christian Fundamentalist forum the mods there (assumingly nuns with some spare time between one prayer and the next one) try to be as fair as they can. But, if you do not want to get banned, I advise you not to write posts too critic of Christian Religion, there.. It is different because our Membership Agreement makes it clear that we are instructed to mod for behavior, not for beliefs. In the Fundamentalist Christian forum too, they say the same. Unfortunately, many atheists there get banned pretty soon. But that is an unfortunate coincidence. It is not our fault if atheists do not know how to post according to the rules, right? A look at the wide variety of beliefs that are regularly posted here will demonstrate that the instructions are being followed as best we can. You can say there is a god and you can say there is no god here. Can you do that in the IC forum? Yes, of course you can. It just happens that, if you say it too often, you sometimes get banned. But, of course, you do not get banned as you do not believe in God (even if there are some cynics who say that). It is just a coincidence that many people who do not believe in God happen to break the MA of the IC (Integralist Christian?) forum. The mods in the IC forum do not discriminate against beliefs. I can show you where mods and admins have had arguments with members in which they have strongly taken one side against un-banned members. I can show you were mod decisions have protected people who are unpopular. But no, I can't "prove" it to you. Good. I already got that. Can you prove to me that people have been banned for "not being liked" as opposed to membership violations? The charge that Mods and Admins do this is yours. You have the burden of evidence. Aaaah! Cart-and-horse inversion!! I have said that the mods can kick out whoever they do not like with whatever excuse. I can not prove (as I never said) that mods actually kicked someone out as they did not like him/her (unless you and Darat are willing to accept to have a brain scan to be put on your head). No, it is not. It is up to the people who click "accept" on the membership agreement to actually accept the rules. However, we do take suggestions. Fair enough. The forum is yours (well, not really yours). You can make the rules as you want. But, with this MA this is not a forum of skeptics, IMHO. Not more than North Korea is a "democracy" (even if it is called The Democratic Republic of Korea) If you can define "derailing" in an unambiguous way that covers every possible scenario yet doesn't require a legal document that would take half an hour to read, then you are invited to submit it as a suggestion. If you can't, then you have little cause for blaming JREF because they haven't. Cart-and-horse inversion, again! If you call yourself skeptics, you (the mods) should write a MA that eliminates as much as possible any ambiguity of judgment. I would rather have no rule than a rules that allows the mods to kick out of this forum whoever they do not like. Anyway, if you are asking people here to improve the MA, I invite you to open another thread, as we are derailing this thread, and I would not like to be infracted Of course you can say that. But if you're saying we do, then you will have to provide evidence. It is impossible for me to prove that mods find excuses for kicking out people as it would be require me a brain scan of your mind when you kick out a member that says that you intentionally kick him/her out because you do not like him/her. My point is mods can find (and, possibly, do) excuses for kicking out people Now, dropping my mod hat for a moment, I will say, just as Tricky, that I do not agree with every decision made here. I think if you asked around, you would see that is true. I have more than once spoken out when I felt a rule was being applied wrongly. But I will say without hesitation that those who applied the rule wrongly (in my opinion) were doing so simply because they interpreted things differently than me, not because they were seeking vengeance against someone. Where you are now sincere or not, this is NOT a skeptic attitude. Having to rely on the hope that the mods do not kick you out as they do not like you as they could do so for almost every post you write is not something that should happen in a forum of skeptics. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 165] Author : Debunker Date : 1st June 2010 12:32 AM ..snip.. A good skeptic knows when an expert is an expert and can be trusted. ..snip.. This, I guess, says it all -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 166] Author : jsfisher Date : 1st June 2010 12:34 AM Debunker, Rather than playing word games, hyper-parsing phrases, and alleging all the evils of the world has possibilities, have you any specific examples you'd like to discuss? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 167] Author : Tricky Date : 1st June 2010 04:25 AM I do not think that necessarily a clear rule should take pages. Then show us. This is your claim. Support it. But, even if it does, in a forum of skeptics, it is up to the people who run the forum to come out with clear rules or, if they can not write rules that are not clear enough in an operative way, there should be no rule Are you seriously suggesting that because the rules cannot be perfect that there there should be no rules? Seriously? What does it mean "as best as they can"? What is a good way to interpret a rule for you, can not be a good way for me. Now we get to the gist of it. You want the rules written in what will be a "good way for you." Well take a number, Debunker. Everybody wants that, yet they don't agree on what those rules should be. I do not think you need to open a courtroom to moderate the forum according to clear rules. Well, I think you're wrong. Anyone with legal experience will tell you that no matter how much you try to cover everything, you never can. You seem to think this is a simple task to do. I disagree. But if you can give me evidence then I'm willing to change my mind. That's what being a skeptic is all about. It is not about leveling unprovable accusations. But, if you do not want to get banned, I advise you not to write posts too critic of Christian Religion, there. You'd better not say anything about the Christian Religion in those kinds of forums. I was in one for a while and I got banned for speaking of God in a lighthearted manner. Yet here you can criticize skeptics, even tell people that they aren't skeptics and not get banned or even warned. That's because we don't mod against beliefs. I think your posts here are a perfect demonstration of that. Unfortunately, many atheists there get banned pretty soon. But that is an unfortunate coincidence. I'm guessing most atheists get banned there, if my experience is any indication. But non-skeptics, Christians, conspiracy theorists et. al. can stay here, and do, as long as they abide by the MA. You want examples? Good. I already got that. But you don't count it as evidence that people don't get banned for being unpopular? Then I'm not sure that there is any evidence you would accept. Maybe I should ask you then what sort of evidence you are looking for? Aaaah! Cart-and-horse inversion!! You keep using that phrase, but I don't think it means what you think it means. You are the one making the claim, therefore the burden of evidence is on you to prove your claim. If that is not clear to you, then I'm quite certain that there could never be any set of rules that are clear to you. I have said that the mods can kick out whoever they do not like with whatever excuse. I can not prove (as I never said) that mods actually kicked someone out as they did not like him/her (unless you and Darat are willing to accept to have a brain scan to be put on your head). Of course. Nobody denies that abuse is possible any time you have human moderators. No set of rules will remove that possibility. Lots of things are "possible". A rogue admin or database manager could delete every post in the forum. It is possible. But there are safeguards. If a mod saw another mod behaving very erratically, it is likely they'd bring it up to Jeff before it got out of hand. But what if Jeff goes rogue????!!!! See, you can bring up any possible scenario and I can't prove to you it would not happen. That is why the burden of proof is on you to show that it has happened. That is how skepticism works. Fair enough. The forum is yours (well, not really yours). You can make the rules as you want. But, with this MA this is not a forum of skeptics, IMHO. Not more than North Korea is a "democracy" (even if it is called The Democratic Republic of Korea) I think it is fair to say that your definition of skepticism differs considerably from mine. You are entitled to your opinion though. You can even express it here. You won't be banned for it. Where you are now sincere or not, this is NOT a skeptic attitude. Having to rely on the hope that the mods do not kick you out as they do not like you as they could do so for almost every post you write is not something that should happen in a forum of skeptics. The only alternative to not relying on the mods (or whoever interprets the rules of a forum) is to have no rules. You cannot write a set of rules which do not require interpretation. There are, in fact, forums out there with virtually no rules. Some of them have a high population of skeptics. Frankly, they're not for me. The signal-to-noise ratio is too low for my taste. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 168] Author : mayday Date : 1st June 2010 09:45 AM Learn to ignore them. There's even an ignore function to help you. What this forum really needs is less rules and people with thicker skins. Boy, you summed it up right there. You either believe in free speech or you don't. No inbetween. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 169] Author : Akhenaten Date : 1st June 2010 02:50 PM Boy, you summed it up right there. You either believe in free speech or you don't. No inbetween. In what way do you consider this bald assertion of a pseudo-fact to be relevant in a thread which bears the title, "I still think we need an anti-trolling rule"? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 170] Author : chillzero Date : 1st June 2010 09:46 PM While I believe that the example provided by UncaYimmy earlier is a good example of a potential banning that may occur due to certain people not liking a member, I agree with zooterkin that it is not an example of one that has happened yet. There may be information the rest of us are not privy to, but I would hope that the mod team take on board how the perceptions that actions around this individual are developing. Debunker, You keep asking Tricky to prove certain things have not happened - you can't ask someone to provide evidence for an absence, or to prove a negative. If you think someone has been banned because the admins or mods don't like them, it is up to you to support that - not to demand anyone else prove it has never happened. Thinking back over previous bans I can't think of any where - regardless of the mod team opinion - the member did not deserve their ban. I don't see the same playing out with UY, so if he finds himself banned shortly I believe you may have the evidence you need to support your claim. But that needs to be parked for now until more information is available (including UY's actual ban, if it is to come). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 171] Author : Debunker Date : 3rd June 2010 12:04 AM ..snip.. Debunker, You keep asking Tricky to prove certain things have not happened - you can't ask someone to provide evidence for an absence, or to prove a negative. If you think someone has been banned because the admins or mods don't like them, it is up to you to support that - not to demand anyone else prove it has never happened. ..snip.. Chillzero, I do not think you have understood what I have been written in the last ten posts of this thread, or maybe I did not make myself understood. Or both. Tomorrow I will reply to Tricky (now little bit too tired ;) ) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 172] Author : Debunker Date : 3rd June 2010 12:30 AM Then show us. This is your claim. Support it. OK. There are rules in the MA that leave little space for mod` s arbitrariness, take rule 5, for example Are you seriously suggesting that because the rules cannot be perfect that there there should be no rules? Seriously? I have never said that a rule has to be "perfect" (what does "perfect rule" mean??) Now we get to the gist of it. You want the rules written in what will be a "good way for you." Well take a number, Debunker. Everybody wants that, yet they don't agree on what those rules should be. You wrote "as best as they can", not me!! Well, I think you're wrong. Anyone with legal experience will tell you that no matter how much you try to cover everything, you never can. I have never said that a rule has to cover everything You seem to think this is a simple task to do. I disagree. But if you can give me evidence then I'm willing to change my mind. That's what being a skeptic is all about. It is not about leveling unprovable accusations. See above You'd better not say anything about the Christian Religion in those kinds of forums. I was in one for a while and I got banned for speaking of God in a lighthearted manner. Are you making a general case of your own single experience? Yet here you can criticize skeptics, even tell people that they aren't skeptics and not get banned or even warned. That's because we don't mod against beliefs. I think your posts here are a perfect demonstration of that. ?? I have never said that when you criticize the mods in this forum you automatically get warned or banned I'm guessing most atheists get banned there, if my experience is any indication. But non-skeptics, Christians, conspiracy theorists et. al. can stay here, and do, as long as they abide by the MA. You want examples? Since it is not even clear to me what operationally means abide by the MA, I guess this is a moot point. But you don't count it as evidence that people don't get banned for being unpopular? I have never said that people get or do not get banned for being unpopular. Unpopular to whom, after all? I have said that mods have the power of kicking out of this forum whoever they do not like or believe being a troll (remember the discussion started from the topic if we need an anti-trolling rule, remember?) Then I'm not sure that there is any evidence you would accept. Maybe I should ask you then what sort of evidence you are looking for? Evidence for what, if I may ask? You are speaking in general terms. If I have making one claim, I have said that people can be banned from this forum, on the basis of the MA for almost any behavior. I can prove the above claim backing it with evidence. You keep using that phrase, but I don't think it means what you think it means. You are the one making the claim, therefore the burden of evidence is on you to prove your claim. The point started when you asked me: Can you prove to me that people have been banned for "not being liked" as opposed to membership violations? while what I was saying is that mods can kick anybody out from this forum for whatever reason (because they do not like their avatar, for being "trolls" - for behaving like "trolls", whatsoever) This is a cart-and-horse inversion, to me. If that is not clear to you, then I'm quite certain that there could never be any set of rules that are clear to you. Some rules in the MA of this forum are quite simple and straightforward, in my opinion. Of course. Nobody denies that abuse is possible any time you have human moderators. No set of rules will remove that possibility. Lots of things are "possible". A rogue admin or database manager could delete every post in the forum. It is possible. But there are safeguards. If a mod saw another mod behaving very erratically, it is likely they'd bring it up to Jeff before it got out of hand. But what if Jeff goes rogue????!!!! Mm.. For the little I know, the forum management people are like a pyramid with few (two or three) people on top that can do almost whatever they like (including kick you out from this forum). I do not think it is a conspiracy theory to say that the upper management people of this forum can, well, "help" each other even in case of non-agreement. It happens in every situation, why not here? See, you can bring up any possible scenario and I can't prove to you it would not happen. Proving to me that it can not happen it is very simple. Just show me that the MA is quite straightforward to tell the people who post here what they can and can not do with little possibility of error That is why the burden of proof is on you to show that it has happened. That is how skepticism works. Has happened what? I think it is fair to say that your definition of skepticism differs considerably from mine. You are entitled to your opinion though. You can even express it here. You won't be banned for it. So far. The only alternative to not relying on the mods (or whoever interprets the rules of a forum) is to have no rules. False You cannot write a set of rules which do not require interpretation. ..since there can not be total democracy, let` s go for total dictatorship, people who want democracy will not be happy anyways.. But maybe you will not get this one.. There are, in fact, forums out there with virtually no rules. Some of them have a high population of skeptics. Frankly, they're not for me. The signal-to-noise ratio is too low for my taste. You did not get what I say. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 173] Author : kmortis Date : 3rd June 2010 05:11 AM This whole discussion reminds me of my Lt. when I worked for a police force. She told me that she only ever arrested someone for being criminally stupid, sure the statutes were different, but it usually boiled down to them being stupid. Same here, a troll will break one of the 13 Commandments in such a flagrent way as to get themselves warned, suspended and eventually banned. We do not need an explict Troll Rule which would by its nature either be so poorly written that no one could be infracted for it, or so loosly written that it'd become the catch-all for getting rid of unpopular posters. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 174] Author : arthwollipot Date : 4th June 2010 10:33 PM I notice that the notorious troll Zach Aviv hasn't been suspended or banned, despite the fact that he has been sprung in blatant trolling behaviour. He hasn't broken any rules, so no ban. And this is one of the most ridiculous trolls I've seen in ages! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 175] Author : rjh01 Date : 4th June 2010 11:00 PM Any member can habitually say the most stupid things and as long as they are on topic and otherwise within the MA there is not much the mods can do. Yet their posts are a waste of space and lowers the quality of the forum. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 176] Author : Akhenaten Date : 4th June 2010 11:12 PM Any member can habitually say the most stupid things and as long as they are on topic and otherwise within the MA there is not much the mods can do. If a member is posting on topic and within the MA then why would the Mods even be considering doing anything? Yet their posts are a waste of space and lowers the quality of the forum. According to whom? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 177] Author : remirol Date : 4th June 2010 11:17 PM Yet their posts are a waste of space and lowers the quality of the forum. If this were a community forum, at least. But this is a debate and discussion forum. Without dissent, there will be little discussion. Someone must play the foil for even the most absurd propositions. The FMOTL threads languish in a sort of sludge of half-passionate mockery currently due to lack of FMOTL supporters who will even attempt to argue their beliefs; most recently Especially has got himself banned for being a nimrod, and Rob Menard doesn't dare discuss anything here because it'll wreck his scams. Most people thought Especially was a troll. But he served a purpose. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 178] Author : Lothian Date : 5th June 2010 08:45 AM Yet their posts are a waste of space and lowers the quality of the forum.http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g250/iamtheinfidel/smileywave.gif -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 179] Author : Lothian Date : 5th June 2010 08:47 AM Ignore. http://www.smileyshut.com/smileys/new/Drinks/drunk-37.gif -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 180] Author : rjh01 Date : 5th June 2010 11:45 AM If this were a community forum, at least. But this is a debate and discussion forum. Without dissent, there will be little discussion. Someone must play the foil for even the most absurd propositions. The FMOTL threads languish in a sort of sludge of half-passionate mockery currently due to lack of FMOTL supporters who will even attempt to argue their beliefs; most recently Especially has got himself banned for being a nimrod, and Rob Menard doesn't dare discuss anything here because it'll wreck his scams. Most people thought Especially was a troll. But he served a purpose. I agree. We do need people to give alternative points of view, as what you have said. I do not care if they are right or wrong. It might persuade someone, somewhere to change their opinions and assumptions. What I do not like is people asking questions like 'whose opinions are you expressing?' as per post 176 of this thread. Or 'are you a mod?' I cannot see what purpose they serve. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 181] Author : jsfisher Date : 5th June 2010 11:51 AM What I do not like is people asking questions like 'whose opinions are you expressing?' as per post 176 of this thread. Or 'are you a mod?' I cannot see what purpose they serve. You are being unfair. Post 176 asks a legitimate question. If you are going to condemn a post as useless, you need to establish an agreed upon measure of uselessness. Opinions vary, but I, for one, find many of the posters that fall under popular disdain as some of the more interesting members. I'd prefer they not be banished unnecessarily. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 182] Author : Akhenaten Date : 5th June 2010 12:23 PM I agree. We do need people to give alternative points of view, as what you have said. I do not care if they are right or wrong. Are you now the arbiter of whether other peoples' points of view (POV) are right or wrong? That's quite a promotion. It might persuade someone, somewhere to change their opinions and assumptions. Simply having an alternative POV of view won't, per se, have any great affect on others' opinions and assumptions; the POV has to be put forward and argued effectively for this to occur. In my opinion, posters who are wont to express alternate POVs but refuse or are unable to discuss them objectively are the real trolls. What I do not like is people asking questions like 'whose opinions are you expressing?' as per post 176 of this thread. That's a strange thing to take a dislike to in a forum such as this. It's usually a key question in any discussion here. Also, you appear to still be having trouble with the quote function. Is there anything I can do to help? Or 'are you a mod?' I cannot see what purpose they serve. Questions serve to elicit answers. The specific question you have used as an example, although not asked in the post which to which you refer, would serve to discover whether or not the person being asked was a mod, or perhaps why that person was posting as though they had that capacity. Hope this helps. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from JREF Forum (http://forums.randi.org) at 5th June 2010 03:30 PM.