Sheshonq

I've noticed that the forums appear to be drowning in crank posters. Arnoldo and sugarhitman being only two of the latest; lee_merrill and others also come to mind.

But it's not the posters which are the problem, really; it's the ineffectual moderation. It's similar to the reaction that one has when they see a misbehaving three year old: you rarely blame the child; it's the parents who are more likely at fault.

Moderators will tolerate page after page of trolling posts and do nothing. But if someone dares to point out that a given poster is a troll, then somehow that's a forum felony.

Sheshonq

Of course he is polite. Why would a troll end the performance before he / they have gotten their money's worth?

The definition of a troll is someone who posts insincere positions or arguments merely for the entertainment of getting a rise out of the audience. The more polite the troll is, the longer the dog-and-pony show can continue.

Amaleq13

Given awareness of this presumed goal, one would think one would consciously avoid feeding into it by remaining rational and objective in one's responses rather than indulging in precisely the sort of childish name-callling one suspects the alleged troll wishes to encourage.

An intelligent individual should be capable of demonstrating for any interested reader that a member is lying or trolling while staying within the rules.

Sheshonq

Presumed? Is there any question?

Nonsense.

1. As I said to you in PM, direct language pulls back the thin veneer of the troll's dog-and-pony show.

2. You're confused about the typical troll's motive anyhow. It isn't name-calling that the troll(s) want(s) to encourage. What the troll wants is for people to be fooled by his motives and intent, assuming them to be honest and sincere. Then the troll spouts off post after post of nonsense, sits back, and watches the forum members run around in circles, spending copious amounts of time researching and refuting the claims that not even the troll himself believes. Then he repeats it again. Great fun, and free entertainment - for the troll, anyhow.

But by calling a spade a spade, it lets the audience (and the troll) know that nobody is being fooled by his faux interest and politeness.

3. Using strong language also brings the hypocrisy of the forum rules out into the sunshine. It forces the moderators to choose between:

(a) addressing the troll problem itself head-on, no more excuses; or
(b) moderating someone like myself who makes genuine and detailed contributions to the discussion.

Since the moderators have a fixation on form over substance, they consistently choose (b).

It's important that the audience realize that -- when given the choice -- the moderators would rather have a polite troll(s) than a knowledgeable and sincere contributor. That says something about just how wrong-headed the focus of this forum is.

That's been done. Multiple times. Yet the moderators have failed to do anything about the trolling. Or the troll(s). This is the predictable result of the abdication of responsibility by the moderators.

Sheshonq

No, we don't.

They are not clueless - they merely want you to think that, because it provides them with plausible deniability and a license to keep doing what they're doing.

Wake the hell up. Nobody is that clueless.

Amaleq13

Childish name-calling is not "direct language". It is suggestive of childish intellect and inability to formulate an adult response.

That can only be your fault since I'm accepting the motive you suggested (ie "getting a rise out of the audience"). Getting one's opponent to make himself look foolish by resorting to childish name-calling certainly qualifies.

You underestimate the intelligence of those you think might be fooled. They certainly don't need you to call someone childish names to recognize their arguments are not credible.

What happens if no one takes the bait and everyone ignores him?

Unless you can demonstrate the claim through argument and evidence, there is no reason for anyone to believe you. If you can demonstrate the claim through argument and evidence, you really don't need to slap any label on him. You can simply let the intelligent readers reach the obvious conclusion.

That, of course, fails to satisfy the immature needs met by calling someone names but no one here has such needs, right?

You are deluding yourself if you honestly think childish name-calling can be considered "substance".

I agree that is no choice but it is also certainly not the choice currently under discussion. A truly knowledgeable and sincere contributor would be intelligent enough to be able to argue without resorting to name-calling.

So, the true choice is between someone who may not be posting with sincerity and someone who intentionally and repeatedly violates the rules. Not a tough choice, really.

Why stay?


Then your job is done. Quit while you're ahead.

Sheshonq

It isn't childish. It is pointed, direct, and accurate. And the very idea that:

(a) connecting the definition of a troll with someone's post ("your comments are insincere and only designed to entertain you by getting an audience reaction") is acceptable, but

(b) directly referring to the person (or their behavior) as a troll/trolling is somehow "childish" and a forum violation - well; that's some pretty amazing orwellian doublespeak ya got there.

So you're claiming I have the intellect of a child now? Will you self-report that insulting remark, or do I need to do it?

Damn. Talk about hypocrisy.

There is no "fault" since there is nothing wrong with accurately describing someone as a troll, or an inconsiderate asshole, or something else if it's what they are. Nor is there any "fault" in accurately pointing out that a pattern of posting is "trolling".

1. Afraid it does not qualify, since I'm not the one looking foolish here.

2. If anyone looks foolish, it is moderators who pretend to not see trolling - or who pretend not to recognize it - and then fail to do anything about it.

Not at all. I'm convinced you, in fact, know they are trolling. What I'm not convinced of is that you're willing to do anything about it.

Changing the subject?

How about answering the question why moderators even let it get that far in the first place?

1. Your problem is that you think calling someone a "troll" is a bad thing.

2. As for "childish needs", what do you think of your own actions above ("suggestive of childish intellect....")?

And you're deluding yourself if you think that I was referring to

(a) pointing out a troll as
(b) evidence of substantial contributions on my part.

If you want evidence of the substance of my contributions, then check out my responses to ynquirer on the dating of Daniel. Then compare to anything that arnoldo, sugarhitman, afdave, or lee_merrill have ever posted.

May not? Where did that sudden doubt come from?

Just above you tried to claim that I was underestimating your intelligence by assuming that you couldn't see the trolling - implying that you do, in fact, see it just fine. You also said I'm accepting the motive you suggested (ie "getting a rise out of the audience"). Implying that you, in fact, realize that these posters are not sincere at all.

Now you're backtracking.

Would you like some time to gather your thoughts and create a non-conflicting position?

No, the choice is still the same:

(a) deal with the troll; or
(b) be caught moderating a genuine contributor instead.

Funny; I was thinking of asking you the same question.

But yours is not. Why recommend reporting a post for trolling if you aren't going to do anything about it?

Come to think of it, when is the last time that any poster was disciplined for trolling? It's never happened, has it?

Toto

Ahem. Trolling per se is not against the rules, unless we can fit it into some convenient category, such as, oh, hijacking a thread. But there is no way we can peer into the soul of a poster and know that he is malicious or having a bit of fun, versus truly convinced of his idiot opinions.

Sheshonq

OK, I can accept that.

My next question is: why is it unacceptable to accuse someone of trolling?

How is that any different from accusing someone of being insincere in their posting? The word "trolling" is just a shorthand nomenclature. And they both would ultimately require peering into the soul of a poster.

Amaleq13

Only when you engage in childish name-calling.

Yes, calling names at those who you have helped show to anyone rational that they are simply incapable of supporting their position makes you look like fucking Solomon. :banghead:

The phrase "quit while you're ahead" has no meaning to you, does it?

People can convince themselves of all sorts of ridiculous notions if they want to badly enough.

Being incapable of defending your position with a rational argument but continuing to have faith in it nonetheless doesn't make you a troll.

No, offering an intelligent, rational alternative.

There is no rule against posting without the ability to adequately defend your position.

My inability to read minds.

No, I referred to those you thought might be fooled. I don't think we have many here who might be fooled by the folks with whom you've been arguing.

By assuming they couldn't see what you call trolling but is actually a position that cannot be sustained by rational argument. I don't think there are many here who are fooled by such blatantly faith-based positions.

That makes no sense. Accepting the motive you attributed says absolutely nothing about whether I think I can actually assess their sincerity.

No, you're not tracking and getting confused trying to follow.