Trolls, or trolling behaviour ...how do we deal with these isues as an online community?

I'm guessing she's just more patient than some, jt...

Quite interestingly, the English translation of La carne, la morte e il diavolo nella letteratura romantica doesn't only have a somehow misleading title but the last chapter of the original book isn't included as well. (In our public libraries you mainly find the paperback version of the German translation - university libraries have, of course the Italian original as well.)

Many books are "expurgated". It's one of the reasons first editions sell at a premium.

Shakespeare has been shot to pieces according to some experts. And translations are always suspect.

I won't pretend that I know everything that goes on around here, I probably only open 1 out of every 20 posts, if that....and I tend to be absent for long periods of time....so take what I say as you wish.

Since I've been back...two week or so...I have noticed a great deal of thumbing down of posts, when I can see no reason for them to have been thumbed down at all....they were on topic, polite, or at least not rude...etc. The members that I see this happening to, are the usual suspects...members that are often refered to as trolls. It makes me wonder if the people doing this simply see that a "troll" has posted something and thumb it down out of habit, without even reading the post. But of course, there are many times that a thumbs down isn't enough, so I'm not saying it's never warrented.

I'm sure many of you are familiar with the theorem written by Mr. Thomas....."If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." I have seen this in action....a "troll" posts in a thread, someone makes note of it, and the rest of the posters seem to switch to...."Yeah this thread is ruined now, cause so-in-so is here."....if the "troll" does not derail the thread quick enough....someone will be sure to drop some bait....kinda self-fulfilling ya know.

---------

And in the master's chambers,
They gathered for the feast
The stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast

Spendius-The discussion seems to have veered away from the crucial topic of "the marketplace of ideas. Sometimes it seems as if these threads are striving to become like teen age text messsaging where most of the commentary is given over to keeping an in-group happy. Is it true, spendius, that most of the commentary on these threads will not be challenged in any way unless it is deemed by the usual suspects to be "politically incorrect"?

glad to see you back, 2packs

Is is the teen dynamic where the cool kids constantly advertise who is OK and who is not. As 2packsaday points out the contents of the posts (actions) is not relevant, though exclusion is always rationalized with some crime the unpopular member has supposedly committed.

I did not like high school when I was a teen, I sure have no need to do that juvenile popularity game again. So far there have still be enough interesting uncool kids around that a2k is still fun, but at some point that will go away.

I’ve been thinking a quite bit about issues raised on this thread & would like to share a few of my thoughts & questions with you all.

One thing I’ve been wondering about is the issue of “personal freedoms” that djjd & others have brought up. I’ve been wondering, amongst other things, if there might be different cultural expectations to such notions. I see lots of references to liberty & freedom of speech here, particularly from some US posters. On a variety of threads, including this one. Whether you want to accept this or not, my concern has never been the nature of ideas exchanged, it is how ideas are actually discussed or debated. Or how people treat each other online, in other words.

I have no problem with posters engaging in a robust exchange of ideas & opinions. But I personally do have a concern when snide personal attacks, particularly combined with little actual substance, substitute for real debate. Especially when a poster (or a group of posters) is using that form of attack against others. Actually a thread where that had occurred was my original motivation for starting this thread. Whether “trolling’ is the correct title for that sort of behaviour or not, I’m actually not certain now, but anyway ....

But back to cultural expectations. Maybe we (or some of us, anyway) have different understandings of what’s OK & what isn’t when exercising our personal “freedoms of expression? That's something I’ve been thinking about recently. Another thing that I’d sincerely like some of you to enlighten me about, is do some of you actually consider personal attacks to be a fair enough tactic in the process of a debate? The reason I ask if there are different attitudes cultural tolerance of such things is because in my country the ideal of a “fair go” is a pretty strong one. A person using (what would be considered) underhanded tactics in an attempt to “win”, rather than prevailing by superior skills, would be considered to be “playing the man & not the ball” (to use a football analogy )

But perhaps you consider expectations of online exchanges an entirely different thing to "real life" encounters? I don't.

The point I would like to make, whether such tactics are considered acceptable or not in a debating situation, is that not all people see such tactics as acceptable, or are comfortable with them. Possibly it turns them off participating if they think they may be the subject of such attacks, too? Is that worth considering, if you have an “anything goes” approach to debating here? Are the concerns of those people any less important than yours?

I get rather weary of the arguments that exercising some basic civility towards others (especially if you are involved in discussion with them) will somehow make the debate less vigorous, less relevant or something .... or that this expectation will somehow make the debate too “politically correct”, or is an exercise in "control", a restriction of “rights”, or that you are being “censored” or something .......

But that might be just my view. You can accept it or not, but controlling what people actually have to say, holds little interest for me. If I disagree with what you say, I will disagree with you & tell you what my opposing view is ... unless of course I’m going to be personally insulted for having the views I hold. THEN I will probably vote your post down, rather than encourage even more of such responses from you. These days I would probably put you on ignore, too, rather than engage in some endless crapping match with you.

PLEASE NOTE: I am referring to overt posting aggression here, not passionate debating of issues.

too bad you ignore what I said originally, which basically was that what masculine men (and women) do yuks you out. We tend to be brash little boys (or tomboys) pushing each other around to see what everyone is made of, and we always want to have the biggest dick in the room. You hate that stuff. You want us to be prim and proper and lady like. That is not going to happen on a unmoderated forum, because it is a unnatural state for us.

The solution is for you to stay out of threads that you don't like.

I think about 10% of what you are complaining about is valid from my perspective, we do have some nasty members, or more often sometimes nasty members, and it would be nice if they reformed themselves.

But my point is that you are not the only posters here.
There are others (& not just women) who might not not have any interest in participating in some sort of jocks' club environment.
Some might find it intimidating.
Are your rights to do whatever the only rights that matter to you?
That's what I was asking.



So, if you turn up to a thread I'm involved & interested in & attempt to prove "who has the biggest dick in the room" when I & others may not be too interested in the answer ... should we then leave & let you go for it?

No, not at all.

Read what I said.

A less drastic solution is to "automatically" ignore him, and "manually" ignore the people you like, but can't resist comparing their dicks to his. But even so, the basic answer to the title of your thread is: we don't deal with trolls and trolling behavior as an online community. We're dealing with it as a bunch of individuals who each ignore the people we consider trolls, and seek out the people we consider friends.

Quote
"Possibly it turns them off participating if they think they may be the subject of such attacks, too?"

I keep most of my views to myself, they are not very popular here. I have a huge file of posts that I have written at A2K, that at the last minute I have copied and pasted into notepad and saved, instead of hitting reply. I usually look at it as, it's just not worth the fight that may come from this.....I have no complaints, I am content with that.

So you're saying you self-censor, 2Packs?

To avoid what you see as the inevitable attacks?

(I hope I've got what you're saying right.)

the situation is not ideal, because as you say the ladies and certain guys have no use for male bonding exercises. Men mostly lost the ability to get away from women and do our thing, and it is now unacceptable for men to act that way as well. Masculine rites have been deemed abusive to women, and not to be tolerated.

But here we have an unmoderated site, one with a reputation for being a place where people can let it all hang out, where serious subjects are sometimes discussed and the passions get into play. Masculine behavior has not been shut down here, which makes it a wonderful place.

I think that if you for instance start a thread and you don't want to locker room stuff then everyone should respect that. This complaint that too many of the threads get crapped in (from your perspective) deserves serious consideration. There is a time and a place for everything, and I think that a2k is big enough to let men be men, but a certain level or restraint must be practiced.

Hawkeye, your choice of words appears to indicate
that u WANT everyone in this forum to consider u to be a JERK,
in addition to a pariah (because of your opinions on a particular subject).

Because u r a socialist, thereby necessarily a collectivist,
it surprizes me that I do not disagree with u MORE than your posts
have moven me to do, but the raucous bellicosity of your selected words in this post
suggest that u choose to be a trouble-maker rather than a sincere debater. Y do u disgrace yourself so ?





David

the name "able to know" implies that this place is to be about seeking truth, it would be a pitty if you and those like you were successful in turning this into just another social networking site. I for one have all the friends I need, I am not here to find more, though if it happens it happens.

Yes, yes, I know, Thomas ...
I have a few on "ignore" now. Some threads are kinda hard to decipher as a result, but never mind ... Sigh

But I was interested in discussing the "censorship", "liberty" & free speech" aspects of my post. I doubt very much that it's the actual content of some posts that some of us find objectionable ... it's more the overtly aggressive style of the poster/s. Often they aren't that great on content at all.
I find the accusations that ideas are being limited rather far-fetched.

exception noted

Not having any idea what words you are objecting to I can't address your complaint.

What hawkeye has been saying here about his beliefs regarding "male "bonding rituals" (for want of a better descriptor) has little to do with socialism.