@JPB,
JPB wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:Since then, only JPB even bothered to reply to the argumentation he requested from me (and barely at that), and a whole slew of mostly abuzzers piled on to the ad hominem bandwagon… but there’s no bias… none.
More on your argument...
OCCOM BILL wrote:Rule: Members should be sanctioned for launching personal attacks on other members for sharing personal hardship experiences. These attacks are repugnant to decency, and only the anonymous nature of the board shields offenders from the natural consequences, that would otherwise curb this offensive behavior. This is the cowardly trolling I so despise. You correctly point out that Shorteyes tends to mask his hurtful intent in a veneer of civility, so his posts tend to violate the spirit rather than the letter of the law, so to speak. That doesn't make his demented misogyny any less repugnant to decency.
I disagree. As much as I cringe whenever some unsuspecting poster who comes here asking for advice gets trounced on for opening his/her soul, it falls to those who care about the person's plight to offer support, remind them that the internet is full of all types of people, and give them what they were looking for when they made the post.
Yes, I know you do. But JPB, you are a kind hearted person... practically the opposite of the trolls I'd target for removal. I don't see how your excellent reaction is incompatible with a minimum standard of behavior... or a system that would eventually help weed out the assholes while, all the while, diminishing the effect of same.
JPB wrote:
Are your rules to apply only to "regular" members who get trounced on?
No. The "Rule" I suggested is more of a guideline or goal than an actual rule, per se. I understand that Robert is trying not to put fallible humans in the position of making judgment calls... and I agree that's a worthwhile pursuit. When he referred to it as the "holy grail", the name really fit.
The enforcement mechanism described in that post is an advanced filtering system that magnifies the importance of thumb votes on sensitive subjects, and automatically assigns greater value to votes from members whose votes have historically met with the community's approval on such threads and a lesser value to those that do not. For instance; your vote, Sozobe's, Deb's, Robert's typically get thumbed up on "sensitive subject" threads, whereas people who tend to bash others without cause tend to meet with less approval. The longer this is the case, and the more consistently this is the case, the more value should be added as the "popular" voting history does indeed indicate a thumb on the pulse of the community, so to speak.
Example: Three much appreciated posters all offer a thumbs down to a post that strikes them as out of line could have the weight of 6 votes down. Now if the member who posted it has a sordid history of making unpopular posts on such threads; this fact alone could lower the auto-collapse threshold to 2 (currently appears to be at 5, but I'm suggesting it be more flexible).
Example 2: Let's say the unpopular post belongs to someone whose advice is usually well taken; their collapse threshold might be as high as 10, since it's highly unlikely they're a habitual abuser (and it may very well be just be an unpopular opinion).
Such a system wouldn't have much of an effect on "average" advice givers at all, but it would empower those who tend to post more appreciated advice to quickly collapse those who tend to bash people without cause. Any "untoward" opinion from someone who doesn't typically offer vote-down worthy posts would be relatively less affected.
The idea is to first separate the "sensitive areas" by keywords, then identify the deeply unpopular posts on qualifying threads, and accelerate their collapse... especially if they come from posters who habitually offer unpopular posts on such threads. Once fine tuned; I'd wager it would not only pin-point the trolls, but it would create an incentive to not be the disruptive jerk who thinks of down-votes as feathers in his cap.
JPB wrote:Do they apply to posts that are themselves made by sock puppets looking to pull folks into a sympathy bath?
The system wouldn't be able to distinguish such posts, unfortunately, any better than us humans do collectively anyway. To the extent these posts exist; they should be targeted for removal IMO, and their authors subject to sanction, because I find them more offensive than spam.
JPB wrote:We have all kinds of people here making all kinds of personal posts.
There are all kinds of people having all kinds of discussions in every social setting. This is in no way incompatible with a minimum standard of behavior.
The strictest bar will never sell very much booze. The loosest bar will find the worst element creating an environment unpalatable to the average patron. The well run bar will let people be people to the extent they treat each other with at least a minimum level of decency; but will always have mechanisms to take out the trash. The regular who occasionally crosses the line will be forgiven. The asshole who habitually crosses the line will be sanctioned first and eventually barred from admittance if he proves incapable of adjusting his behavior to something above the minimum standard.
JPB wrote:It's the internet, Bill, not a clubhouse.
What makes you think "the internet" is incompatible with minimum standards of decency? I don't get that point of view to begin with, but let's try to keep our eye on the ball: Trolling is the ball.
Thomas courageously admitted that he shares the same archaic view of statutory rape as Shorteyes (which probably means he's not too thrilled with my use of that moniker for Hawkeye10, to begin with.) Could anything I've posted be construed to mean I think Thomas should be banned for posting that opinion? No, despite the way Robert chose to stack the deck in this thread's title, I've never advocated any such thing. Obviously, the "rule" you commented on and that I've elaborated on here would eventually render Hawkeye10 completely irrelevant. But what effect would it have on Thomas? Virtually none... because Thomas is not in the habit of offending people, despite his alleged (frankly disgusting) view on statutory rape. The fact is; his exceedingly sharp mind, and general decency is generally very well received and this fact would prevent his "untoward opinion" from ever subjecting him to sanction for same. Thomas is not a troll, by any stretch of the imagination, and you'll notice my proposed rule would identify this truth easily.
Is it possible that Thomas, deep down, is every bit as demented as Hawkeye10... and is just better at hiding it? I certainly doubt it, but it's certainly possible, but what's the difference? If Hawkeye10 developed the couth to disguise his dementia to defeat the proposed system; the mission would still be accomplished because by then he would have ceased to be a troll.
JPB wrote:It's the internet, Bill, not a clubhouse.
Take two. The internet is evolving out of it's caveman days at an astonishing rate. I carry it in my pocket wherever I go, plug it into my car as I drive, and increasingly use it both at home and the office. I'll be surprised if I don't see it popping up above urinals in upscale establishments soon. It's not just for nerds and misfits anymore. People have been known to kill themselves over what's posted on boards like this. I think a great many of us would be forced to admit we've obsessed over conversations with virtual strangers right here. People make friendships, strong enough to merit crossing State lines just to see each other, and many have even fallen in love. Sure, there's no doubt always going to be losers professing to be something they're not, anonymous cowards acting like tough guys, sock puppets gaining some kind of demented self-gratification by inventing reasons to be pitied, etc. But increasingly it is also becoming populated by real people, with real feelings, who treat the internet not much differently than the "real world" precisely because the two are colliding... no, let's make that
merging.
I take offense to the idea that the off-balance person who stumbles in here looking for help must, mandatorily, come with the wherewithal to fend for themselves in a hostile jungle. I am somewhat appalled at the level of apathy implicit in insisting that passersby, who would never stand mute while a stranger was accosted in front of them, should do so on "the internet" ... as if that off-balance stranger is any less human than he who is verbally victimized in person.
I understand only too well that believing too deeply in something on "the internet" without more reliable substantiation it is a mark of naivety, but since when did people in any venue not come with a mixed bag of attributes and weaknesses? Honestly, I can’t imagine why anyone would think a person on "the internet" should mandatorily be savvier than the person who wanders into the wrong part of town, or any other setting where their vulnerabilities might be more easily exploited. What I really cannot fathom is why anyone but a troll would think it necessary to cater to trolls in order to facilitate a free exchange of ideas. The system I described would provide ample exposure to even the most heinous minds, should they come knocking, it just wouldn’t welcome them to stay.
I find Charlie Manson a pretty intriguing fellow too, but I wouldn’t let him crash on my couch… let alone indefinitely.
