Ask not for whom the trolls troll - they troll for thee

[Timsup2nothin]

@Timsup2nothin , again sorry. Overall I'd like to see more leeway given to folks calling out obvious trolls but I'm not sure what form that leeway would take. I want there to be room for people to deliver some hard knocks to each other, really fight things out and hopefully reach some level of detente where possible... while the folks who are not here, genuinely for argument/debate, but simply to hurt others, are gradually shouted down.

As you've said in the past this site is kind of like a club where folks get to know each other over time and our relationships develop.

Case in point... I dare say I might be one of those people @Valka D'Ur is musing about in her sig. Maybe not, but I can at least recognize that we've not had the best relationship in the past... but I believe over the years we've grown to a place of mutual understanding and "CFC pal"ship as I like to call it... as tends to happen in a club. Again that was one (of so many) illustrations/metaphors/etc that you've made that I found so meaningful and profound.

Club CFC... so true... keep doing what you do... it would't be the same without you.

I dare say I almost certainly am. Without actively ignoring, I have found my path to co-existing. Whatever I may personally think, she is a member of the club, with plenty of fellows who value her. Disagreements, be they political or personal, are not the issue.

Known trolls* aren't "disagreeing." They are using disagreement to disrupt. They might rouse a little cheer sometimes, like our recent troll who stormed in spewing outrageous nativist slogans probably made our local nativists smile a little bit at the discomfiture of the people who were being glaringly trolled in the process, but there is a question whether this passing meteor immolating themselves in the atmosphere even really believes those things. They are obviously set on not being around long enough to be really known, so there's no way to tell. And really no point in doing anything other than helping them on their way as quickly as possible while allowing as little disruption as possible.

Accumulating infractions onto known, regular, and widely liked members of our little 'club' adds to that disruption, it doesn't minimize it. Either rules or enforcement policies need to be changed to reflect that.





*defined by, hey, he just got back from being banned for trolling, and has launched a series of posts that are basically carbon copies of the posts he got banned for, and his history reveals that this cyclic event is his only participation on the site

 

[metatron]

Thank you for creating this thread. I assume this thread is directed to OT-specific rules, not to the site rules as a whole. We are interested in hearing opinions on this issue,

I object to everything JR and Tim are asking for here.
I am severely offended by a multitude of statements in this thread and by the current state of affairs.
I feel that if the mod staff gives way to the demands implied here in any way the Rubicon will be finally crossed and any pretension that this board wellcomes users with varied views from all over the world will be finally condemned to ruin.
I am rather disappointed in the staff at this point.

I could explain my views at great length... but... i am unwilling to participate in a contest in who can PDMA the hardest with some flimsy plausible deniability.

 

[HoloDoc]

Known trolls* aren't "disagreeing." They are using disagreement to disrupt. They might rouse a little cheer sometimes, like our recent troll who stormed in spewing outrageous nativist slogans probably made our local nativists smile a little bit at the discomfiture of the people who were being glaringly trolled in the process, but there is a question whether this passing meteor immolating themselves in the atmosphere even really believes those things. They are obviously set on not being around long enough to be really known, so there's no way to tell. And really no point in doing anything other than helping them on their way as quickly as possible while allowing as little disruption as possible.

Accumulating infractions onto known, regular, and widely liked members of our little 'club' adds to that disruption, it doesn't minimize it. Either rules or enforcement policies need to be changed to reflect that.

This is true. In the recent incident, the troll originally tried to get a rise from political comments, but when that didn't work - @Broken_Erika simply produced a source that destroyed the troll's argument - the troll resorted to personal attacks with the full intention of burning the thread to the ground aroundthe troll. The troll isn't political; they're just a troll. They'd probably happily talk crap about the opposite side of politics as well if it was the only way they could get their kicks.

Moderator Action: Discussion specific incidents is PDMA. leif

 

[metatron]

the troll resorted to personal attacks with the full intention of burning the thread

Members of the geographical-sociopolitical consensus on this board use personal attacks all the time.

(I am not going to assess how often they are infracted for that behavior and what may be the causes for the relevant quantity.)

 

[HoloDoc]

Members of the geographical-sociopolitical consensus on this board use personal attacks all the time.

(I am not going to assess how often they are infracted for that behavior and what may be the causes for the relevant quantity.)

Not that I have seen. At least, not serious flames.

 

[metatron]

Not that I have seen. At least, not serious flames.

Never mind our join dates i understand that your witness testimony surely outweighs mine...
... for the "flames" of the righteous cannot ever be deemed truly "serious".

(Edit: Homophone mishap. I shall be lucky if tim didn't see it.)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

@metatron

Do you seriously see this

*defined by, hey, he just got back from being banned for trolling, and has launched a series of posts that are basically carbon copies of the posts he got banned for, and his history reveals that this cyclic event is his only participation on the site

as applying to you? Or to anyone like you? Or as being applied to you by someone else? Because I sure don't.

We've crossed swords. We disagree on plenty of things. Some of those things we disagree on to the point where I think we both know that if we were face to face they'd be best not talked about. I've probably hit you with some posts that were infractable, and probably even some that did draw infractions. But you aren't by any stretch, in my estimation, such a known troll. If some new poster jumped into a thread and started blasting at your views and rabidly attacking you personally I'd be first in line to flame them and send them on their way...even if they were nominally 'on my side' of the issues you and I don't agree on. You've paid your dues and you are one of us, "Deplorable Ally" or not. Known trolls being allowed to troll freely does no more good for you than it does for me.

I arrived here with my own unpopular views. I still have them. I sometimes put them out there and fight the crowd to defend them. But I paid my dues by participating, and continue to pay them. I didn't walk in on day one, air my obvious differences, and then flame all and sundry until I was banned, only to return and do it again.

 

[HoloDoc]

Never mind our join dates i understand that your witness testimony surely outways mine...
... for the "flames" of the righteous cannot ever be deemed truly "serious".

If we're going to get into a pissing contest, I could point out that I've made one-fifth of the number of posts as you I spite of you being here sixteen years longer, and imply that you obviously aren't engaged enough with the forum to take note of actually behaviour here. I could also point out that I was a lurker long before I became a poster. But I don't think measuring each other's genitalia is a good way to progress this discussion, and think it's a little childish of you to take it there.

I have literally argued with a poster, now suspended - I don't know what for - in one thread while simultaneously defending him in another. A dick is a dick, whether said dick leans to the right or the left. I have seen only a handful of what I would class as flames worth infractions since I came here. Plenty of lesser flames, which are relatively jocular, from all sides. Half of @JollyRoger's posts are in the latter category; I haven't seen enough of his posts to even know which side of the political spectrum he falls on, so I'm hardly qualified to judge his "righteousness."

 

[metatron]

Do you seriously see this
[...]
as applying to you? Or to anyone like you? Or as being applied to you by someone else? Because I sure don't.

What i see and what you see is immaterial. It's for the staff to decide who's a troll.

If we're going to get into a pissing contest,

We're not.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Case in point... I dare say I might be one of those people @Valka D'Ur is musing about in her sig. Maybe not, but I can at least recognize that we've not had the best relationship in the past... but I believe over the years we've grown to a place of mutual understanding and "CFC pal"ship as I like to call it... as tends to happen in a club. Again that was one (of so many) illustrations/metaphors/etc that you've made that I found so meaningful and profound.

You're not one of the people who inspired my sig. We've had our disagreements from time to time, but we're cool now.

 

[HoloDoc]

What i see and what you see is immaterial. It's for the staff to decide who's a troll.

We're not.

Good to see such a cogent, detailed response. Basically what you're saying here is; "let the market mods decide."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Good to see such a cogent, detailed response. Basically what you're saying here is; "let the market mods decide."

Ultimately, the rule of law allows for nothing other than "let the mods decide." However, there is room for input on the question "how shall the mods go about deciding?" At least I am hoping there is room, because how they are currently called to decide has a serious flaw.

 

[metatron]

Good to see such a cogent, detailed response. Basically what you're saying here is; "let the market mods decide."

It's their privilege to do so.
If you want to accuse me of being a sycophant to their authority...
...that is entirely up to you.

 

[bernie14]

[edit]. It seems obvious to me that people place different value on belonging to the club, postcount, join date, etc, etc, however, i dont think this offers anyone the right to troll or flame or moderate others, unless that right has been given by the admins...isent that the reason there is moderation?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Tbh, i am quite torn. It seems obvious to me that people place different value on belonging to the club, postcount, join date, etc, etc, however, i dont think this offers anyone the right to troll or flame or moderate others, unless that right has been given by the admins...isent that the reason there is moderation?

Would you mind clarifying what you are "torn" about? As it stands this post doesn't seem to add anything to the discussion.

 

[bernie14]

Would you mind clarifying what you are "torn" about? As it stands this post doesn't seem to add anything to the discussion.

Fine. In order to leave personal feelings aside, i will edit the post

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Fine. In order to leave personal feelings aside, i will edit the post

Addition by subtraction? I still don't see that it adds anything.

The issue at hand doesn't really have much to do with 'members of the club,' or how we relate to each other. Even members who openly despise each other are regulated effectively enough for the site to operate. It also has nothing to do with new members who want 'to join the club.' Whether those new members are liberals with their hair on fire, alt right nativists, or anything in between, as long as they come in, follow the rules as much as the rest of us do, and hang around, the rules will work the same for them as for anyone.

But the "Imma make a profile, jump in here and blast the snot out of some of these snotbags (whoever they happen to be thinking are said snotbags) until I get banned, and maybe when the ban wears off I'll do it again until they get around to banning me permanently" crowd don't contribute anything. Sure, if one of them came along that targeted you I'd laugh my butt off. But I'd still recognize that they were just a troll trolling and that they don't deserve any protection.

 

[bernie14]

Addition by subtraction? I still don't see that it adds anything.

The issue at hand doesn't really have much to do with 'members of the club,' or how we relate to each other. Even members who openly despise each other are regulated effectively enough for the site to operate. It also has nothing to do with new members who want 'to join the club.' Whether those new members are liberals with their hair on fire, alt right nativists, or anything in between, as long as they come in, follow the rules as much as the rest of us do, and hang around, the rules will work the same for them as for anyone.

But the "Imma make a profile, jump in here and blast the snot out of some of these snotbags (whoever they happen to be thinking are said snotbags) until I get banned, and maybe when the ban wears off I'll do it again until they get around to banning me permanently" crowd don't contribute anything. Sure, if one of them came along that targeted you I'd laugh my butt off. But I'd still recognize that they were just a troll trolling and that they don't deserve any protection.

Its not that hard tim, ask to be a moderator or follow the rules

 

[Silurian]

It seems to me that the trolls are like the sea they come and go but we are just players and can not fight it. Even Cnut the Great decided he could not fight the sea.

So how do we fight the sea without making ourselves look stupid rather than the sea.

As I said on above what do you feed the sea (troll) with, if you throw water into the sea the sea gets bigger.

It seems obvious to me that people place different value on belonging to the club, postcount, join date, etc, etc, however, i dont think this offers anyone the right to troll or flame or moderate others, unless that right has been given by the admins...isent that the reason there is moderation?

This is the way I see it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I object to everything JR and Tim are asking for here.
I am severely offended by a multitude of statements in this thread and by the current state of affairs.
I feel that if the mod staff gives way to the demands implied here in any way the Rubicon will be finally crossed and any pretension that this board wellcomes users with varied views from all over the world will be finally condemned to ruin.
I am rather disappointed in the staff at this point.

I haven't been a mod for some years, but I think that the experience now is not too dissimilar from what I experienced. Poster problems may increase or diminish as time passes, but the troublesome posts are pretty much the same. The mod forums are a complicated dialogue of give and take among moderators on what and how to respond to forum events. I'm guessing that the hard and soft line sides of discussion and response still exist in some fashion. Complicated decisions will be discussed and decided based on multiple factors that include who, what, when, where and how often. "One size fits all" rarely works in a situation like the one which triggered this thread.

Ultimately, the rule of law allows for nothing other than "let the mods decide." However, there is room for input on the question "how shall the mods go about deciding?" At least I am hoping there is room, because how they are currently called to decide has a serious flaw.

I'm pretty sure that mods and supermods and maybe even admins joined the mod forum discussion. This is not a new situation and the staff has had to deal with much worse over the years going all the way back to 2001. What changes over time are the moderators involved in the discussions and their particular personalities. Over time the moderator culture can move and change depending upon who is influential.