Forum Posts Feed
forum enhancement suggestions
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Pages: ‹ First < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Posted by Dr Andus
Sep 13, 2012 at 08:33 AM
Dr Andus wrote:
>I would suggest we develop a protocol for dealing with trolls. 1) How to identify a
>troll; 2) How to deal with trolls; 3) how to protect freedom of speech; 4) how to protect
>members against accusations of trolling.
>
>The wikipedia entry does a reasonable
>job of defining trolling:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
For those who don’t have the time to read it or haven’t had experience with trolls, here are some key quotes:
a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
“Trolls aspire to violence, to the level of trouble they can cause in an environment. They want it to kick off. They want to promote antipathetic emotions of disgust and outrage, which morbidly gives them a sense of pleasure.”
The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group’s common interests and concerns.
Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community.
Posted by Foolness
Sep 13, 2012 at 08:35 AM
Troll protocols exacerbate trolling. (Anytime a protocol can be used as a weapon by anyone, even good users have succumbed to it as a way to shut down the opposing party using the least ethical evidence possible and of course if the opposing party provides counter evidence, then who fired first wins setting aside an advantage by one party over the other.)
Wikipedia have also succumbed to trolling before. See history of competing wikis such as Citizendium.
This doesn’t mean the idea of a protocol is bad but if we’re talking about some of the basic things that have been discovered throughout online communities’ popularity is that weapon capable protocols are extremely unproductive. Especially label protocols.
Especially troll protocols as troll can mean very broad things (but any broad label/positive or negative/ has lead to worse communities long term) For an outlining community who should be familiar about outliners, this is a huge stepback from the basic solutions provided by argument maps which partly solved the issue precisely because of outlining rather than broad labelling.
Once again, if you want a protocol, it’s common enough in most forums but just don’t make it a troll protocol and try to be as reductive as possible. The less broad it is, the less future long term headache it will open up.
Posted by Franz Grieser
Sep 13, 2012 at 01:44 PM
Hi.
What I find difficult for a protocol is to take the definition from Wikipedia:
>>The wikipedia
>entry does a reasonable
>>job of defining
>trolling:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
>
>For those
>who don’t have the time to read it or haven’t had experience with trolls, here are some
>key quotes:
>
>a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic
>messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary
>intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting
>normal on-topic discussion.
>
> “Trolls aspire to violence, to the level of trouble
>they can cause in an environment. They want it to kick off. They want to promote
>antipathetic emotions of disgust and outrage, which morbidly gives them a sense of
>pleasure.”
How could somebody (except for the troll) really KNOW what the troll’s intentions are?
What I find more suitable is “labeling” someone a troll depending on what he/she does:
* Attack others. Defame others. Use offensive language.
* Often write posts that are off-topic.
...
Franz
Posted by Dr Andus
Sep 13, 2012 at 02:29 PM
Franz Grieser wrote:
>How could somebody (except for the troll) really KNOW
>what the troll’s intentions are?
Well, sure, probably not even the troll knows…
>What I find more suitable is “labeling” someone a
>troll depending on what he/she does:
>
>* Attack others. Defame others. Use offensive
>language.
>* Often write posts that are off-topic.
it’s probably more like a process of diagnosis on the basis of the symptoms. I was just trying to give some examples of the behaviour as described in Wikipedia (I didn’t include the references but there some).
BTW, Wikipedia is just a medium. Whether a particular entry is of high or low quality depends on how it was put together and by who (just like a scientific paper).
Posted by Ray Cosner
Sep 13, 2012 at 03:01 PM
As one who has been following this forum for years, but posts infrequently at best….
Brevity is a key to effective communication. A clear, brief comment is far more effective than several paragraphs.
It always antagonizes people to ascribe a motive to them, and “call them out” for those assumed motives. Even if you’re right about their motive, which is rare. Respond to the content, not to what you believe is the motive.