If I've learned anything in seven years here -- and I'll admit that's a big if -- it's that the only productive response to someone who declares that he's trolling for your own good is to shun the person in question. We already know and respect each other, and have already had meaningful conversations on the points most such trolls bring to the table; there's no need to engage in conversation on their terms, even if it's to clearly refute their points -- precisely because they aren't as interested in being right as much as having an audience to whom they can declare their rightness.
In other words, until Kathy gets around to slapping this guy down, give 'im a berth. He brought his own rope to the hanging; you don't need to line up to help him string it up.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Since I've been avoiding the more hotly contested threads, which poster/subject are we discussing Tom?
-Trevor
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Hear hear
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
*Is curious, too*
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
*cheers*
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
::echoes troubs::
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Yea, who is this guy we must quarantine? We better form ranks now before we have to shift opinions!
BC
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Don't worry, BC - I'm sure it's not you. If you were ignored, we'd all be limpid.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
As your eyes are no doubt limpid pools that a man could get lost in?
Tis true, Tom is never weak where I am concerned, and this seems weak.
BC
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Nobody has (as of yet to my knowledge) ever admitted to "trolling for our own good" at Hatrack, so I don't see how you could have learned that lesson.
Now, if there is any lesson we should have learned, it is that when WE call someone a troll, WE create problems that need not exist, and WE are most likely wrong. Time and time again, Hatrack has labeled someone a troll and has turned out to be wrong. It's almost like clockwork. And inevitably the result is a lot of fighting until we all realize the person in question is not going away, and we learn to treat him or her with a minimum of respect.
[ November 14, 2004, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Nobody has (as of yet to my knowledge) ever admitted to "trolling for our own good" at Hatrack, so I don't see how you could have learned that lesson.
Ah. I am more observant than you are. I would say that, in living memory, no fewer than twelve people have made posts in which they insisted that they were arguing for the love of argument, and that we should appreciate their contentious, inflammatory style for one reason or another. I believe only two of them actually used the word "troll" in their announcement, but I submit that we can safely substitute any deliberately inciteful behavior.
Frankly, Tres, I cannot recall a single time in which I called someone a troll without being remarkably, indisputably, and uncannily correct. My batting average in this regard, as measured by any yardstick you like, is rather good.
I know you like being contrary just for the sake of being contrary -- that's the whole point of the Xaposert mask, after all -- but you don't have to bark up every wrong tree that comes along. Pick your trees more carefully.
[ November 14, 2004, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Seriously Tom, what's up with your sudden, high frequency use of the word "submit"?
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I find that it's a slightly more polite, less presumptive way of saying, "if you had a brain, you'd realize." j/k
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I know the truth - Tom's got a Rod Serling complex:
"Submitted for your consideration: A poster on a popular author's internet forum. Some call him a troublemaker; others call him a troll. But really he's a case study of just how little intelligence it takes to operate a computer, here in the twighlight zone."
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: but you don't have to bark up every wrong tree that comes along
Is this a pun I smell?
They seem to branch into every thread.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
And I'm once again reminded of how much I miss Tom
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Sometimes it's best to just leaf things be.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Nah,I prefer to root out the problem as quickly as possible. We can tap into a lot of resources here to do it.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I would say that, in living memory, no fewer than twelve people have made posts in which they insisted that they were arguing for the love of argument, and that we should appreciate their contentious, inflammatory style for one reason or another. I believe only two of them actually used the word "troll" in their announcement, but I submit that we can safely substitute any deliberately inciteful behavior.
Tom, saying that you enjoy argument for its own sake has nothing to do with being a troll. If that constitutes trollness, I submit that most people who post on this forum are trolls, whether they admit it or not - except the extremely fluffy.
Being a troll is enjoying making people mad for its own sake - and who has admitted to that? Not the person you are referring to now. That is just something you have put in their mouths, with two possible exceptions that I can think of (one of which was extremely brief).
quote:Frankly, Tres, I cannot recall a single time in which I called someone a troll without being remarkably, indisputably, and uncannily correct. My batting average in this regard, as measured by any yardstick you like, is rather good.
Tom, you've been wrong in at least the past three times you've called someone a troll on this forum, including the person you are calling a troll right now. You might claim you were right, but you certainly can't claim that you were indisputably right, because I'm disputing you right now (and did so at each of those times) - and in none of those cases was I disputing just for the heck of it (that is NOT what Xaposert is all about.... )
To call someone a troll simply because you disagree with their opinions or their style is unfair.
[ November 14, 2004, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Oh no... not more bloomin' puns!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
But is it not mulch mulch better just to leaf things alone and stick to what matters? Wood anyone disagree with that? It's knot always easy but it's by far the nicest way, I think.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No, Tom has been correct many times, and he is probably right about this one too.
I don't think Tom was calling you a troll for always disagreeing with people. He was just saying that you argue just about any point, for little or no reason, quite often.
Even to the point of telling people that they don't really mean what they just said, they mean what you say they mean.
So according to your "logic" we are at fault if someone comes in here and craps all over other people because they don't agree with them, or sometimes even if they do agree... we comment on how "trollish" they have been, therefore making them what we are accusing them of being?
Talk about circular arguments......
If someone is acting like a troll then I have no problem calling them one, or at least letting tham know what I think of them and their attitude. If they are willing to discuss things with outers that is fine...they aren't a troll. But if they come in here and stir up trouble just because they can....to the point of bragging about it even....
They can go punt, for lack of a better word.
At least I don't go around pretending to not have an opinion on it....it sould always be fairly clear where I stand.
I don't WANT everyone to agree with me, I like having spirited conversations with people who have opinions that differ from mine. That doesn't mean I want to listen to an immature bigot who is just trying to start a flame war.
Kwea
[ November 15, 2004, 02:32 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Kwea said the b-word!
Troll!
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Is it time to bring up nazis yet?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
It has been pointed out, quite rightly, that Hatrack can have a positive influence on people, even if they start out as trolls.
We have a fair number of young members here. Some of whom have yet to refine their senses of humor to the point that an adult would "get it." They probably often come off as "trolls." There are also people who come here having experienced other fora and figure that any place on the web on which discussions take place must be nasty and competitive. It usually takes them a few trial balloons before they figure out that we don't, as a matter of course, just jump down people's throats in our discussions.
In sum, today's troll might be tomorrow's valued member.
I'm all for trying to correct their behavior. Either through direct confrontation or through subtler behavior modification techniques (such as ignoring their troll-like posts and rewarding their human-like posts). Whatever. We've seen any number of people figure it out. For those who don't figure it out, the novelty of annoying a bunch of people who don't react as expected wears off soon enough.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I don't think Tom was calling you a troll for always disagreeing with people. He was just saying that you argue just about any point, for little or no reason, quite often.
Oh, I know Tom isn't referring to ME as a troll, but he is calling someone a troll, and doing it unfairly. (Although I did mention he's also incorrect if he thinks I argue things for little or no reason - there's always a good reason.)
quote:If someone is acting like a troll then I have no problem calling them one, or at least letting tham know what I think of them and their attitude.
There is nothing wrong with calling a troll a troll. The problem is that people call nontrolls trolls, like in this case - and that just causes problems. Having the wrong opinion is not acting like a troll. Neither is presenting it in an overly direct fashion. Neither is being a bigot, or not being informed, or not caring about the right issues, or having bad grammar, or wanting to talk about an issue that other people think is too contraversial, and so on. The only thing that is trolling is going around intentionally angering people for the sake of getting them angry - and that has only been done repeatedly by a couple of posters, none of which are recent. It certainly hasn't been admitted by anyone here now.
Kerry supporters could go around doing things like calling all Bush supporters trolls, but would that make it true? No. You can't just call people trolls because you don't like their posts. And you certainly can't call someone a troll for trying to provoke discussion on a given topic. You might as well just go around calling people Hitler.
(Now is the time, Troubadour )
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The only thing that is trolling is going around intentionally angering people for the sake of getting them angry...."
Ah. Again, Tres, you are operating from a definition that is not universally shared. In fact, I think you will find -- yet again -- that your definition here is considerably more narrow and useless than the commonly-accepted one.
In my book, for example, engaging in such definitional arguments knowingly, if for example you happen to know that your definition of "troll" is one that is not likely to be accepted but which is the only one you intend to acknowledge over the course of the discussion, would actually count as trolling.
I believe, based on my track record, that I can say with authority that my definition of "troll" is both functionally more useful and more predictive than yours, as it correlates closely to the people who have either apologized for their behavior on this forum and reformed or were subsequently banned from this forum for that behavior.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Tom, the problem with your definition is that under that definition, trolls aren't bad for the forum.
Are we here to drive out people who disagree with us, or write in a fashion we don't like, or use a method of argument we don't like, or discuss issues we don't want to discuss? If we are, I think we have a much much bigger problem than simply labeling the wrong people trolls.
For instance, by the definition you just gave, I am most certainly a troll, because I often use definitions that I know are unlikely to be accepted by the majority of the members here. I do this because it is wrong to misuse a terminology just because it is popular to do so, and doing so promotes confusion, ignorance, and a failed discussion. Now are you suggesting that not only should you get to call me a troll, but I should also be driven away from the forum because YOU disagree with that particular method of argument? I think that attitude would not only be shameful elitism, but would also qualify as trolling under your definition.
I suspect that under your definition, most people here are trolls to one person or another on the forum. We have a serious problem if everyone is going around calling eachother trolls whenever they dislike what the other posts are saying.
So, either my definition is right and these people are not trolls, or your definition is right and we shouldn't be driving them away - either way your suggestion that we ostracize "trolls" is not correct.
[ November 15, 2004, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Are we here to drive out people who disagree with us, or write in a fashion we don't like, or use a method of argument we don't like, or discuss issues we don't want to discuss?"
Ah. This definition of "trolling," by contrast, is one that I would posit is unnecessarily broad.
It, too, is not the definition of "trolling" I use. If I did use it, I would certainly understand why you might find it unacceptable. Luckily, I do not.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
It seems, Xap, that Tom is more referring to someone who presumes a different definition of the term being used to ascribe knowingly false motive or meaning to someone else's comments, rather than confronting directly the definition of the term in question (as you often do). That about right, Tom?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
But you DO apparently still use some definition that includes plenty of people who aren't bad for the forum - a point you have not answered. You were referring to a perfectly decent member as a troll in your first post, for instance, and just now you've mentioned a characteristic of trolls that seemingly places me in that category as well.
[ November 15, 2004, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well, you ARE ugly. . .
Ooo. . . does that make me a troll?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But you DO apparently still use some definition that includes plenty of people who aren't bad for the forum - a point you have not answered."
You think so? Hm. I would say that as far as identifying people who have proven bad for the forum, I'm batting pretty close to 100%. I understand why you might not want to list names here, but feel free to drop me an E-mail listing people you think I've unfairly maligned over the last few years. I may be suffering from selective memory -- or, as I think is more likely, we may disagree on what sort of behavior is bad for the forum.
If the latter, however, I should point out that the supreme arbiters of that decision are the mods -- and I'm very comfortable applying that standard. If you are uncomfortable with the fact that my definition of trolling includes some behaviors in which you engage, I regret that you interpret this as a flaw in my definition.
[ November 15, 2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Found in the Left and Moral Relativism Thread:
quote:Icarus: I submit that
Epidemic! Aaaaaaaahh...
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Of course you think what you think is right. Everyone does - I'd be willing to bet almost everyone here thinks they are batting close to 100% when it comes to identifying trolls. For instance, many people thought David Bowles was a troll when he first showed up, and he was not. Many people think Thor is, and he is not. I suspect a number of people think you are, or would if they were working by your definition.
Is your idea of a productive forum one where we all have are own personal set of behaviors that we consider "trolling," and then go around shunning and labeling anyone who does those behaviors a troll? I have seen forums like that, and I bet you have too - they are very unfriendly places. If anyone says anything that offends anyone else they are a troll to that person, and discussion immediately ends, replaced by fighting and name-calling. Most people are driven away, except for whatever loud and aggressive group comes to dominate the definition of what is acceptable or unacceptable there. Any real debate is impossible.
You say it is the mods who should determine what behavior is unacceptable, but then you have a whole thread here devoted to the advice that we members should shun people who act unacceptably, based on your definition (which you then put into the alleged troll's mouth by suggesting that he "declares that he's trolling for your own good", when all he has declared is something that you happen to consider bad for the forum, but he considers good for it.) That is not the blueprint for a forum where the mods are the arbiters of acceptable and unacceptable. If you think it is important that we members shun people, then it is we who are judging, not the moderators.
quote:If you are uncomfortable with the fact that my definition of trolling includes some behaviors in which you engage, I regret that you interpret this as a flaw in my definition.
Well, am I a troll or not? And more importantly, do you think Hatrack should shun me and get me to leave?
If not, then if you definition says I am a troll, either the definition is wrong, or we trolls aren't all bad for the forum. So, what is it?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: On the Internet, troll is a slang term used to describe:
1. A person who makes posts (on newsgroups or other forums) that are solely intended to incite controversy or conflict, or cause annoyance or offense. 2. A post that is intended to incite controversy or cause offense. (Many posts may inadvertently cause strife as collateral damage, but they are not trolls.)
To some, the term has negative connotations and is often applied as an insult, while simultaneously being claimed as a badge of honour by troll organizations or individuals. Sincere but controversial or naive posters are often labeled as trolls, but the term is generally considered to be correctly applied only to those looking to provoke outrage or discord.
A troll's reactions to being identified as a troll can vary widely depending on the forum in which the exchange takes place. Any person unjustly accused of being a troll may be hurt and express indignation. A troll will sometimes react with verbal abuse, raising the stakes with inflammatory remarks maligning the motivation of the accuser.
Trolling is often described as an online version of the breaching experiment, where social boundaries and rules of etiquette are broken. Self-proclaimed trolls often style themselves as Devil's Advocates or gadflies or culture jammers, challenging the dominant discourse and assumptions of the forum they are trolling in an attempt to subvert and introduce different ways of thinking. Detractors who value etiquette claim that true Devil's Advocates generally identify themselves as such for the sake of etiquette, whereas trolls often consider etiquette to be something worth trolling in order to fight groupthink.
Trolls are sometimes caricatured as socially inept. This is often due to fundamental attribution error, as it is impossible to know the real traits of an individual solely from their online discourse. Indeed, since intentional trolls are alleged to knowingly flout social boundaries, it is difficult to typecast them as socially inept since they have arguably proven adept at their goal.
The act of posting a message in a newsgroup that is obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic, hoping to trick a newbie into posting a follow-up article that points out the mistake.
1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase “trolling for newbies” which in turn comes from mainstream “trolling”, a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT.
2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, “Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll.” Compare kook.
3. n. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.
Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.
The use of ‘troll’ in any of these senses is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning “Do not feed the troll” as part of a followup to troll postings.
quote: I'd be willing to bet almost everyone here thinks they are batting close to 100% when it comes to identifying trolls.
I can think of about three times when I was wrong. I've stopped trying.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I've been gone for a while and someone starts trolling? Bah! Leave that up to the professionals. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As I've said, Tres, you're welcome to E-mail me a list of people you think I've unfairly impugned. I'm willing to stand by my assessments.
If you want to discuss whether it's worthwhile to identify anyone as a troll, that's another discussion. Personally, I think it's a useful discrimination.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
My point is not to attack you specifically for mistakes you may or may not have made in calling people trolls. My point is for the forum, so I'm not going to go into private discussions over it.
And it is not wise to redefine concepts to make them more "useful". That just amounts to using them wrongly.
The reason troll has such a negative connotation is because we take it to be someone intentionally harming the forum and someone we want to get rid of. All these other people are simply people that annoy us, but by redefining troll to include them, we are implying they are far worse than they are. It's an insult to them, no different than calling them bad people, and it wrongly implies that we should be wanting them to leave.
[ November 15, 2004, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The reason troll has such a negative connotation is because we take it to be someone intentionally harming the forum and someone we want to get rid of."
Ah. No. See, your problem is that you're using the wrong definition.
If you were to substitute "intentionally behaving in a way that will harm the forum" for "intentionally harming the forum," you would be closer but still not quite there. Central to the practice of trolling is a completely self-centered worldview: that by throwing the forum into disarray, or poking it for amusement, or stirring up trouble to make it more interesting, that they are making the forum "better" for one very specific value of "better." The troll seeks to "improve" the forum against the wishes of its inhabitants, insofar as gaining a lot of personal attention by pissing people off constitutes improvement by their standards. I would also suggest that calling someone a troll is not quite the equivalent of calling someone a bad person; it does imply that the person is one we would prefer to see either reform or leave, but I'd hardly suggest that everyone who doesn't post to Hatrack standards is in fact a poor human being.
[ November 15, 2004, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:shun the person in question
Tom- If you'd like to modify this to say "shun the specific trollish action", I can almost buy your definition. You're not suggesting that though. You seem to be suggesting shunning the person.
That's just nasty in my book. It's especially offensive coming from someone as well respected as you are on this forum.
I bet if you look back in your bag, you could find a few tools that are more effective and less destructive to use to fix the problem.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
I've noticed that people already shun the truth here on more than one occasion, So hey let's just put the trolls with truth ok.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Rav!! (glomp) Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I'm lost. Who's the troll again?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You can't shun actions, but you can shun people that perform those actions.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
I fail to see how you can't shun an action. More to the point: Not acknowledging someone's point of view is partially the problem. If someone thinks you don't understand where they are coming from they may just try harder to explain it. Although I have found that if someone doesn't acknowledge what I say then I think no one is listening, and why bother explaining something further if no one cares?
If people acted with consideration of others we wouldn't ever have trolls. Part of the problem with the word 'troll' is just that, it's just a word, and it means too broad of a subject. My advice to Hatrack on this is to be polite, and respect each other, _including_ trolls. If you give a person respect they have some to give back if they had none before.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
MPH-
quote:shun
v 1: avoid and stay away from deliberately; stay clear of [syn: eschew] 2: expel from a community or group [syn: banish, ban, ostracize, ostracise, cast out, blackball]
I'd say that if you're looking for a definition that could only be applied to people, #2 would do it for you. I don't think definition #2 "expel from a community or group [syn: banish, ban, ostracize, ostracise, cast out, blackball]" was what Tom meant by "shun".
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I still don't know Boris - looks like I may have to dive into some of the more hotly contested threads to find out.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don't think definition #2 'expel from a community or group [syn: banish, ban, ostracize, ostracise, cast out, blackball]' was what Tom meant by 'shun.'"
Actually, it specifically was. After several years here, I've learned that the single most accurate identifier of an incorrigible troll is his insistence that his trolling is necessary either to liven things up or make us face the truth. It has nothing to do with the content of his opinions, or even his posting style; it has entirely to do with whether he believes that he should ignore the wishes of the community for our own good -- which, of course, he feels qualified to decide.
Such people inevitably -- inevitably, without exception in my memory -- either wind up flaming out spectacularly after causing a fair bit of disruption and/or drift away after a few months when people stop rising to the bait and start ignoring the troll altogether.
I greatly prefer the second of those two scenarios, and suggest therefore that skipping straight ahead to the shunning is preferable to risking the former result.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
I'm sorry to hear that Tom. I was under the impression that it was the mods job to decide which people needed to be banned.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Whether or not you shun the person's posts unilaterally (which is really an individual decision), if the person in question begins their own thread with an inflamatory post it's pretty silly to all rush in and tell the person they're a big stinky dork.
For a minimum of two pages. Which is pretty much what's been going down.
[ November 20, 2004, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I'm spooked by Katarain's encyclopedic knowledge of trolling displayed on the 1st page. She's a witch--burn her! Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:After several years here, I've learned that the single most accurate identifier of an incorrigible troll is his insistence that his trolling is necessary either to liven things up or make us face the truth. It has nothing to do with the content of his opinions, or even his posting style; it has entirely to do with whether he believes that he should ignore the wishes of the community for our own good -- which, of course, he feels qualified to decide.
Tom, you've just described almost everyone on this forum. Most of the threads on the front page are either designed to (a)liven things up, or (b)make people face the truth. Only a few do other things, like ask a completely open question or discuss a personal issue. This thread is (b).
The problem with your definitions are that, if we accept them, even you are trolling right now. After all, you are intentionally trying to convince us to "shun" people. This would be terribly harmful to the forum - we'd be driving out people and fighting constantly (as we do every time we try to shun someone, virtually without exception). Thus, you are intentionally doing something that would harm the forum. And you claim to be doing this for the forum's own good, as if you know better than all of us who we should call trolls and what we should do with them.
This is just the self-centered view you were describing as trollish - the only difference being this time it's you talking rather than some pro-Bush guy who you disagree with. Does this mean I should call you a troll too? Does this mean I should shun you until you leave? No. It just means what you are calling a troll is not a troll. It is virtually ALL of us.
Our goal here is not to drive people away. Whether they leave in a rush of flaming, or whether they leave slowly over time, BOTH are bad things. Our goal is for them NOT to leave, and for them to post their views in a reasonable fashion. That is a goal that has been accomplished, even with some of the most inflammatory posters - and the only way I've seen it done is by treating their opinions fairly, and giving them the time needed to figure out they won't convince anyone of anything by fighting.
[ November 20, 2004, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
Obviously the troll is tater. Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
If I've learned anything in ten months here it's that the people who most vigorously wave the banner of tolerance and compassion are the most lacking in those qualities.
Troll on!
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Sometimes I like trolls.
They make my day funny.
--j_k
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"you are intentionally trying to convince us to 'shun' people. This would be terribly harmful to the forum"
Ah. Beyond the kneejerk fear of seeming judgemental, can you explain why this would be so?
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Making people not want to be here, how can you have a forum if no one is around to talk to? Things have a way of snowballing way out of proportion.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Because without the bad people, we couldn't appreciate the good people.
-Trevor
Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
Ther are more than enough "bad people" (in this case, people trying to stir up trouble and make people cranky) in the world for us to compare the good ones here to, TM.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I don't think that what Tom is sugesting is any different than what we would do if we met them IRL, so I don't think it is a problem.
Tom has repetedly refused to name the person/people who "inspired" this thread this time around, which is a very good indication of his intentions.
I don't like attempting to have a discussion with someone who isn't interested in hearing my side of an argument, nor do I like being called names just because I disagree with their views. If he/she/they were to speak to me IRL the way they do here online, I would either walk away and ignore them, or I would tear them a new one in public, hoping that they would take the hint and leave me alone.
However, I have no problem having spirited discussion, here or IRL, with people who don't agree with me on a given point...in fact I often enjoy it, as long as we are both respecting the others right to disagree, and making the attempt to at least understand where the other is coming from.
What is so wrong or contraversial about wa;king away, or hitting the ignore button, when someone is deliberatly offensive to me?
I don't really care if I happen to agree with them or not, if someone comes in here and refuses to respect others in here, I won't care what they have to say about anything. That holds true even about a few recent threads where I agreed in part with some points that were made, but I still objected to the posters attitude and style. I haev also defended people from trolls even when I disagreed with their views...not because I had been converted to their viewpoints, but because they didn't deserve to be attacked for holding views that I don't agree with.
Xap, I find it rather funny that you are now berating anyone for holding a definition that differs from yours, and saying that it interferes with communication....you do that all the time. Then you blame the rest of us, most of whom agree with each other that YOU are the one with the faulty definition, for being obtuse for not bowing to your redefinition of terms.
You aren't a troll, but there are times where I could care less what you think because you don't usually debate topics, you debate semantics......and you don't eevn do that very well most of the time. You actually LOSE peoples resect and attention because you are so busy telling us what we really meant that we just tune you out.
Or at least I do.
But that doesn't make you a troll, just an ineffective debater.
You also come up with some very good points when you aren't busy tilting at windmills. You care about the discussions, at least some of the time, so by MY definition you aren't a troll.
Just annoying.
People can say they care all the time, but if you judge people on their actions as well as their words it soon becomes faily obvious who cares and who doesn't.
Kwea
[ November 20, 2004, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
I see the forum is alight again. Not as seriously as in many previous instances, but clearly this is a sign of boredom. It's hard to recycle old arguments over and over again.
I would have thought that we would have had enough experience to deal with this kind of thing by now. Seriously, Hatrack culture should have come far enough to be well prepared for alleged trolls, no matter how smart they are.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, a lot of us diagree with each other all the time, I am not suprised to see that we disagree on how to handle alleged trolls as well.
[ November 20, 2004, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
Maybe that's our culture.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
I disagree Kwea.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
May you burn in Hell, and your chil...
I mean, that is too bad.
Kwea
Posted by FriendlyNeighborhoodWitch (Member # 6317) on :
Morbo-I'm afraid that you are incorrect. In defense of Katarain, for all I know an innocent bystander, I am compelled to sacrifice myself.
I am a witch, burn me.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
IMO, the occasional troll helps us maintain a definition of normal behavior around here. Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Hatrack culture should have come far enough
Hatrack hasn't come along because Hatrack lacks direction.
It's the same old high school popularity contest all over again, with the sports jocks and cheerleaders making up the IN crowd, and everybody else being a loser or a troll. Except you people aren't sports jocks and cheerleaders are you?
Nope, you spent your high school years on the outside looking in, criticizing the in-crowd's cliquishness. You swore you'd do things differently if you were ever part of a bunch of like-minded people. What a bunch of hypocrites!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Heh.
Welcome to the club.
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
There's some stereotyping for you. Actually, I'm willing to bet that most individuals, no matter how "nerdy" they might be, probably had their own kind of clique in high-school, and probably weren't so concerned about the social circles of jocks and cheerleaders, except when they wanted to either date them or avoid criticism from them. But being on the "outside," what would I know about the impressions that people on the "inside" have towards those on the "outside?"
"They all just want to be like me."
[ November 21, 2004, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Khavanon ]
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
Besides, Hatrack has had direction before. It seems to be absent right now. That's unfortunate.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It's the same old high school popularity contest all over again, with the sports jocks and cheerleaders making up the IN crowd, and everybody else being a loser or a troll. Except you people aren't sports jocks and cheerleaders are you?
Wow. Way to stereotype. I almost forgot that all internet users are geeky outcasts. Or is it all OSC readers?
I don't think that admission of trollish activities is necessary to be considered a troll. All it requires is scorn, ridicule, and a desire to grab attention by becoming a common enemy. The same reasons people become bullies, deface buildings, or write computer viruses. I frankly don't care why they're doing it. It's usually not that hard to tell when someone is being provocative to change opinions and when someone is just itching for a fight. I have no use for online vandals.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Just as we have trollish instigators here, we also have IN crowd ringleaders here. The two are going to clash. The ringleaders will not allow anyone to perturb their power base.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don't think that admission of trollish activities is necessary to be considered a troll. All it requires is scorn, ridicule, and a desire to grab attention by becoming a common enemy."
As has been pointed out, however, it's not always easy to tell when people mean to be trolls or not. So I generally try to refrain from passing judgement on anyone -- and prefer to believe that anyone can change, once asked the right way -- until they come out and say it.
In other words, it's not necessary for someone to admit to being a troll in order for them to be a troll, but it's a fairly dependable standard and (IMO) a good place to draw the line.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Pft. I don't know about you geeks, but I was cool in high school. Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
That's it - I want a divorce. I absolutely refuse to associate with someone who was popular in high school.
[ November 21, 2004, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Shan ]
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
quote: The ringleaders will not allow anyone to perturb their power base.
Having been involved in Hatrack quite heavily in the past, and being well-liked by most people here at the time, I don't recall ever having been exclusive of anyone. It usually went some thing like this:
"Hi this is my first post. I'm so and so."
"Welcome to Hatrack."
"Nice to meet you."
"Hey, I've been there before."
I also remember the occasional person who came in and said something to the effect of, "Well, I don't know you, but I think you're a freaking idiot for saying this..." That's usually not such a good first impression. I've been away awhile, so I guess I can't speak for the current state of the forum and how welcome new people are, or who the current "ringleaders" are.
[ November 21, 2004, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: Khavanon ]
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
(Hey Khav, where the heck you been?)
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
I've been cramming a 5,000 year old language into my head. I wish I had a port on the back of my skull. Consequently, it eats up way too much of my time. That, and military obligations. Not that I don't have any free time. Hatcrack requires so much devotion to enjoy it properly. I have free time, just not enough for this wonderful bit of code and personality. But I had a craving lately...
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
That's ok Shan. We don't have to associate often. Just once a week, and twice on Valentine's day. Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Why twice on Valentine's Day, may I ask???
*thinks again*
Never mind . . .
*wanders off to check on child, cat, and find her sleeping cap*
Y'all have a nice discussion of trollish behavior, now, y'hear . . . Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
quote: vwiggin Member Member # 926
Hey, your name was created right before me. I haven't had the chance to get to know you yet. Am I a bastard and I just don't remember, or have we not overlapped our posting time?
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
psst. vwiggin = someone you already know.
quote: Hatcrack requires so much devotion to enjoy it properly.
I totally hear you on that one. I always feel like I'm just skimming and therefore on the outskirts of things. It's good to see you posting. Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
quote: psst. vwiggin = someone you already know
Of course. I'm out of the loop. Everybody's got names and side-names with a thousand posts. I've got one side-name that's like 5 1/2 years old and it has 14 posts. Someday I'll bring this name up to 5K and I'll take that other one out for a spin for a few months.
quote: It's good to see you posting
Thanks, it's nice to see you, too. I'm sorry that I haven't been more active. I really need to stop in more often. I think all you guys are awesome, and I miss... a lot of things. I say that everytime I come in. Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
Beren One Hand! Sorry buddy. Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
"Hey, your name was created right before me."
And don't think I won't be lording that over you for the rest of your Hatrack career.
Don't know who I am? I expected more from the creator of The Hatrack Historical Research Archive.
Thanks, Narnia.
Good night Shan, give Pepper a hug for me.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I don't think there is a circle of ringleaders protecting their powerbase, although there are definitely factions and sides for most issues.
Tom and I tend to end up on the side of doubters and religious nay-sayers with the same players arrayed on the other side of the field of battle (conflict, dispute, discussion, disagreement), for example.
There is a pretty consistent bastion of defenders of the faith with a fairly consistent list of names.
-Trevor
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Yep, it's as regular as Monday Night Football...
Davidson takes the snap from center, fades back to pass and... it's a long one to the endzone, TMedina leaps for it and Dagonee intercepts the Hail Mary.
But, there's a flag in the backfield, roughing the passer on Sopwith, they're gonna call this one back folks.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I almost decorated my screen with coffee on that one . . . and I don't even watch football!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Hatrack hasn't come along because Hatrack lacks direction.
It's the same old high school popularity contest all over again, with the sports jocks and cheerleaders making up the IN crowd, and everybody else being a loser or a troll. Except you people aren't sports jocks and cheerleaders are you?
Nope, you spent your high school years on the outside looking in, criticizing the in-crowd's cliquishness. You swore you'd do things differently if you were ever part of a bunch of like-minded people. What a bunch of hypocrites!
How would you know? Do you have some sort of special powers that allow you to see inside our minds? Did you know each and every one of us in High School, and even if you did were you in any position to judge us in regards to our social standings?
That isn't trollish behavior, skillery...it is pure stupidity, with a dose of arrogance thrown in for bad measure.
There are always, in any social group, tendencies for people to form sub-groups with people they like and respect. It isn't exclusion, because there is no automatic friendship rules here, nor should there be.
However, just because I don't see eye to eye with you, or Dag, or Belle, or TomD doesn't mean that I have a right to yell and shout you down when/if we talk about something we disagree on.
I do, however, think that there are standerds of behavior that everyone must be held to so that this board will continue to prosper.
If you (not you, but whomever the troll of the moment is) can't be civil, and all you do is post inflammatory retoric, then we are probably better off without you here. If you disagree with me, or anyone else here, but are at least willing to listen to the other side, then we probaby are better off if you stay and participate.
It isn't rocket science, is it?
It has nothing to do with "power bases" or "popularity contests", becasue the same set of rules apply to everyone. If you have been here for a bit people MIGHT be willing to cut you some slack once and a while...or you might become the favorite target for others...I have seen both happen more than once. Sometimes being well know here has it's drawbacks too.....just ask Ralphie or Sara.
It is pretty simple...be civil most of the time, and don't assume that your ignorant stereotypes about others here are correct.
On a more personal level, I remember some of the first posts you made here at Hatrack, skillery, and I didn't see a lot of people discouraging you from posting. I think you said something about wanting to try again, so maybe there was something I didn't see near the beginning. In fact I saw a lot of encouragment from others once you got going. I rememeber a few of your posts, the pinewood derby one quite well actually...I used your suggestions, and still have the web site you recommended to us bookmarked for next year.
I am sorry that you see this as some sort of continuation of high school....but that tells us more about you and your experiences than it ever could say about us, as I am unaware of a single Hatracker you have met IRL. It is easy to make generalizations about people you don't really know, isn' t it?
When I proposed the WMASS Hatrack Picnic this summer I didn't restrict the attendance to those Hatrackers I liked, or to those that I agree with the most.
If we were all as petty as you seem to think we are, I would have.....and we would be all have missed out on a great time.
So next time please be a little more careful about that type of overgeneralization, OK?
Kwea
[ November 21, 2004, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
The problem with gossip is it never ever dies.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:It's the same old high school popularity contest all over again, with the sports jocks and cheerleaders making up the IN crowd, and everybody else being a loser or a troll. Except you people aren't sports jocks and cheerleaders are you?
Nope, you spent your high school years on the outside looking in, criticizing the in-crowd's cliquishness. You swore you'd do things differently if you were ever part of a bunch of like-minded people. What a bunch of hypocrites!
skillery, this is a very unpleasant picture you paint. I can see why you wouldn't want to hang around at such a place.
What is it about Hatrack that keeps you here? What is it that balances out all the bad that you see (above) and makes it worth staying?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
I keep coming back because I have a couple of favorite threads that are fun to play around in.
However, I'm disappointed that some of the playground bullies killed my favorite playmate.
Now my favorite thread has reverted to Hatrack women's fantasies about having sex with their favorite Lord of the Rings characters.
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
quote: Don't know who I am? I expected more from the creator of The Hatrack Historical Research Archive
You can lord that over me, too. But I did find that out on my own before anyone told me. Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
So, those threads are worth putting up with bullies. Had you thought about hosting your own forum with those thread topics?
We have so many persons from here that started their own forums, and many are quite well-populated. You could invite your friend back to your own forum, too.
Your bitterness and resentfulness is tangible, and I'd like to see you feel more at home and at peace. I can't imagine choosing to share a playground with people I see as bullies again -- junior high school was more than enough. Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
There's more than enough room in this playground now that the political activists are slowly relinquishing their stranglehold on page one. There are enough fun-loving types here to have a rollicking good time in a variety of threads.
Rather than banishing trolls altogether, how about confining them to threads where they are welcome?
I should have learned by now to stay away from threads by and for Hatrack's founding elite. Perhaps a juicy FAQ to that effect is in order.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That assumes that confining anyone to a single thread is possible, and that so-called founding members actually have any power over what happens to whom. It is ultimately up to the mods, and the mods don't shy away from banning even long-time members (just ask Leto).
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:"you are intentionally trying to convince us to 'shun' people. This would be terribly harmful to the forum"
Ah. Beyond the kneejerk fear of seeming judgemental, can you explain why this would be so?
Because the best possible result of shunning someone is that they leave disappointed, and the more common result is that a big fight occurs and a bunch of people get mad. Neither of these are anything we want.
Additionally, if we are going to start calling whoever we want trolls, rather than only people who are intentionally trying to harm the forum, then it seems like feuds are almost a certainty. After all, I'm sure there are people who think anything wildly anti-Bush is trolling, and other people who think anything wildly pro-Bush is trolling, and others that think semantic arguments are trolling, and others that think posting lots of fluff is trolling, and so on and so forth. Our goal is NOT to have a bunch of subsections of Hatrack all shunning one another.
quote:I don't think that what Tom is sugesting is any different than what we would do if we met them IRL, so I don't think it is a problem.
It is just as bad a strategy in real life. Shunning people who bother you is one of the most common methods of bringing down serious trouble for yourself. It reaches its peak in Middle School feuds, but it's something very common everywhere - and it almost never is productive.
Thus, if people are doing it in real life, that just means it is even MORE of a problem.
quote:You aren't a troll, but there are times where I could care less what you think because you don't usually debate topics, you debate semantics......and you don't eevn do that very well most of the time. You actually LOSE peoples resect and attention because you are so busy telling us what we really meant that we just tune you out.
I disagree. If there is a disagreement on the meaning of terms that is preventing two sides from progressing on an issue, you might as well end the discussion right there if you aren't willing to go into the semantics of it. There will be no agreement until either (1)one side shows the other how they do not understand what they mean by the words they are saying, or (2)one side tricks the other into accepting their own definitions without realizing it. I don't like tricking people in arguments (that just leads to trouble eventually) so the only alternative is to explain to them what they really mean - or give up on them and the discussion entirely (which I'm not normally prepared to do). Whether it ultimately is effective or not, it's the only way to honestly progress.
Whether this gains me respect or not doesn't really matter. I'd like to think my points are convincing based on something more substantial than respect people might (or might not) have for the person making them.
But again, I think by Tom's definition this does make me a troll - which is one reason I'm inclined to say his definition is wrong.
quote:In other words, it's not necessary for someone to admit to being a troll in order for them to be a troll, but it's a fairly dependable standard and (IMO) a good place to draw the line.
But in this case, and other cases, they did NOT admit to being trolls. They just admitted to being other things, from which you decided to infer they were Trolls. The difference between the two is huge - like the difference between admitting you are a murderer and admitting you had an abortion.
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
quote: There's more than enough room in this playground now that the political activists are slowly relinquishing their stranglehold on page one. There are enough fun-loving types here to have a rollicking good time in a variety of threads.
Hatrack is seasonal. You start off with a little excitement to a Card related event, say a new book, or more movie stuff, or maybe he pops in and says "Hi." Then after a while you get into the warm fuzzies, get-togethers, and games of mafia or role playing certain stories. Then eventually the forum collectively gets bored and serious and brings up politics, religion, etc. And then someone pops in and sets the whole forum on fire until a Card related event recurs...
and the forum reincarnates.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:katharina: that so-called founding members actually have any power
What makes the founding elite so powerful is their ability to manipulate the mods. Imagine for instance what would have happened if someone espousing the LDS faith rather than the Quaker faith had posted in that "looking for a reflective, quiet church experience" thread.
The founding elite have also been guilty of baiting the hook before running to the mods.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, you are paranoid.
People who accuse of baiting usually have little self-control to begin with, and therefore blame others for their own rude reactions.
The reason LDS didn't post in Shan's thread is because Shan has been LDS, and she was sincere in looking for something else.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
I at least had enough self control to stop bothering one of your friends when asked.
You'll forgive me if I don't embrace the paranoid label. My experience in one encounter with a Hatrack founder has convinced me it is true with many Hatrack founders in multiple occurrences. Funny that the label should come from you though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Don't be coy. You want to say something, spit it out. You don't want to say it out loud, don't allude to it.
Added: You did stop bothering someone when asked. That's great. I think...I think you might be better served if you found out why it was bothering her than accusing anyone of arbitrarily closing ranks.
[ November 21, 2004, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Some of us can't help being coy, Super Kat.
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*amused* So, skillery, I wonder. Since I am not LDS, and certainly haven't been around here long enough to be a founding anything -- where do I fit into your paranoid little view of Hatrack?
Oh, and I was one of the people most actively requesting that your "favorite playmate" have his posts edited and/or get banned. Mostly because when he was JUST being odd and slightly inappropriate, I defended him. Repeatedly. So once he -- multiple times -- crossed the line into exceedingly hurtful and offensive, I felt obligated to report him. Repeatedly.
And just about when I felt a little bit bad about my part in that, I got an obscenity-laced email from him. So, yeah, no guilt here.
And kat's right. You are being incredibly paranoid. *pat pat* Stick around. We'll beat that out of you. Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I was wondering about that.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Davidson takes the snap from center, fades back to pass and... it's a long one to the endzone, TMedina leaps for it and Dagonee intercepts the Hail Mary.
That's TOO funny.
As for cliquishness and bullying - I had to go to junior high and high school. But as far as I know, nobody's parents are forcing them to read and post here.
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well done, Tom, well done.
The liberal cabal salutes you.
-Bok
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What makes the founding elite so powerful is their ability to manipulate the mods
You kidding? We can't even get them to email us.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I tried manipulating the mods once, but Quake 2 never played the same way again.
-Trevor
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Who exactly is the founding elite?
I think Annie has been here the longest of anyone that still posts on a consistant basis...
Hobbes Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Exactly, Scott. Cliquishness yes, mod manipulation, nay. Any social group will form subgroups, so what? On the whole I find HR far more civilized than HS.
Belladonna, take a number, line forms on the right, no shoving. . .
Seriously though, did you see that recent PBS documentary, a Secrets of the Dead episode, that tried to establish that the psychotic symptoms of ergot mold in rye was a root cause of the Salem witch trials as well as much of the witch persecution in Europe? It made a very convincing case.
The symptoms of ergot poseining are very similar to what was described in diaries and court records of the Salem trials. But the most compelling evidence to me was when they overlaid a map of the rye-growing regions in Europe with a map of witch persections. It matched up extremly well.
[ November 21, 2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Really? I'll have to find that episode - I've always found people to be a hysterical group of animals.
Or should that be hysteria-prone?
-Trevor
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
::slight derailment:: In an effort to try to figure-out what/who got Tom's dander-up, I went back and read Raia's "tears" thread.
In it, the mods deleted some posts, noted why the posts were deleted and issued a warning.
This clear act of communication does wonders for my faith in the board and its governors.
Thank you, powers that be.
::editted because my punctuation has been terrible lately::
[ November 22, 2004, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote: if you found out why it was bothering her
Are you baiting me to test my self control? I'm sure your friend would prefer that I not even think about what might be bothering your friend.
It's funny how many of the people I had in mind actually turned up for this little discussion without my mentioning a single name.
Annie is cool though. (Don't worry Hobbes; I'm not thinking about her.) Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, I find it particularly amusing as well how the people who read and post most on hatrack read and post most on hatrack.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I know what skillery is talking about, but I think it's more human nature than bullies and the in crowd. Within any large group of people there is always going to be a smaller group that gets along particularly well with each other, and less well with the other members of the group. When that group, as it does on hatrack, contains several people who are loved and respected by everyone in the larger group, then you have a group of the elite.
I'm assuming from what I've read here that skillery was friends with fallow, who many people in that group (and many other people who aren't as important and thus not worth targeting) were openly critical of, and that's where he got the bullying accusation from.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not to mention the fact that he was WAY past the line recently in chat, so we all had to hit ignore on him just to be able to converse with each other.
I defended fallow more than once, but finally I had had enough. I didn't campaign for him to be banned, but I didn't cry over it much either.
skillery, I still don't see the problem...if someone is rude I don't talk to him. If he is really rude I tell himhe is , and why I think he is. If he disagrees with me, but is even a little bit respectful about the conversation, then I have no problem.
Tres:
quote: I'd like to think my points are convincing based on something more substantial than respect people might (or might not) have for the person making them.
That is the point... if we agree to your often radical re-definition of terms, then there is no basis for disagreement. You don't usually make any point at all, besides the fact you like to argue.
Most of the time you are the only one who agrees on the "new" definition, but it doesn't stop you from telling us we are all wrong and you are right. Semantics is only good for a few things....when it is a substitute for critical thinking about the issues being discussed it only hurts the conversation and leaves everyone unsatisfied but you.
Not my idea of a good way to spend an evening.
But this brings up another point...even though Tres and I disagree on this and many other points we can still beash each ohter up o the pigskin pick'em thread, and sometimes we have a good discussion despite ourselves...
There have been some people who came in here breathing fire, adn I spoke up against their style, but two days later found myself giving video game reviews to them, or trading quips with them on another thread. As long as they are decent to others here, I don't care that they are liberal/conservitive, or LDS, or RC, or Wiccan......
So I think Hatrack is still far more civil than most places, which is why I come here more often.
Skillery, the only way to keep a thread on the first page is to either post in it a lot, or make sure it is intresting to a lot of people here. There isn't a rule that prevents you from digging one up and bumping it, you know.
If I don't like someones attitude I will make sure they know about it...it is far better to be honest about that than to skulk around and pretend to not care. That way if they get banned like fallow did, they can't say they weren't warned. After I do so I will usually will avoid them, unless they try to change their attitude. This doesn't mean that I want everone to think the same as I do, or that I don't enjoy a good argument.....it just means that is you don't have fairly good manners don't expect to be invited to the table.
Tres, if you are a troll, you are a fairly subtle one.
Enless you want to re-define subtle too.
Kwea
[ November 21, 2004, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:What makes the founding elite so powerful is their ability to manipulate the mods. Imagine for instance what would have happened if someone espousing the LDS faith rather than the Quaker faith had posted in that "looking for a reflective, quiet church experience" thread.
(thanks, Kat - )
skillery, it's no secret to folks around here that I was raised as a cross-section of LDS and Roman Catholicism - with pretty powerfully negative experiences - and that I have been "in search" if you will for quite some time. The LDS members here are the ONLY LDS members I've had any experience with that leave me with any positive feelings for that particular brand of religion, and their input is certainly welcome anytime. So, I really don't understand your concern about that . . .
As far as Mike goes, I, too defended him for a long time. But you know what? He doesn't need or want anyone's "defense" here. Let it go, skillery - take a break and a deep breath - everyone had their own experiences with him, and from the sounds of it, he could be downright mean. He wasn't mean to me, but by all accounts, I may have been the exception to the rule. By some accounts, I was too stupid to know any better. *shrugs* I tend to take people at face value.
There are times when I just need to turn off the ole PC and go away for awhile - so much is lost in the electronic world when we don't have access to the other 90% of how people communicate.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
(fairly off-topic:
quote:As long as they are decent to others here, I don't care that they are liberal/conservitive, or LDS, or RC, or Wiccan......
It took me a Google search to realize you meant "Roman Catholic" by RC. The only "RC" I was familiar with was "Remote Control", which kind of increased my suspicions that we do, in fact, have a robot posting. Oh well. )
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, we do.
Her name is K.A.M.A., but she is a hot robot, so it is OK....
Kwea
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Shan: He wasn't mean to me
Didn't he hijack your character for some mud wrestling in the Wenches' Tavern thread?
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
Right, Kwea, sorry for not clarifying in my post. I was talking more about the face-caving, missile-clad, beeping robots from miles underground, not the hot robots from Poland.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Actually, I don't recall, skillery - I figure there are some threads where you just play and have fun - and sometimes play is messy.
I had an absolutely fine time one Friday night-over a year ago I think - when fallow was flish and a bunch of us were just role-playing dancing and having fun at some absurd party thread . . . *shrugs*
For as much fun, or as intense a we can get over serious topics, I always wonder what I am missing by not seeing the person/people during our interactions. It just kind of leaves me wondering from time to time what someone really meant by something - the kind of wondering that probably would be non-existant if we were in one big happy group . . .
For folks that have been around a long time, they have learned to interpret writing styles, I think, so they are maybe a little less put off by certain things folks say or do -
It's just a communication process - a fairly fascinating one - and one that I am actually learning a valuable skill from - how to STOP and THINK before I POST. (or speak IRL) This is not an easy skill for me, and I am grateful for Hatrack's patience with my learning curve!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I would say that, in living memory, no fewer than twelve people have made posts in which they insisted that they were arguing for the love of argument, and that we should appreciate their contentious, inflammatory style for one reason or another. I believe only two of them actually used the word "troll" in their announcement, but I submit that we can safely substitute any deliberately inciteful behavior.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
j/k
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)