When Shutting Up isn't Cowardice

gus tie dyed my sheep

0 Replies

Any of you old psych majors remember learning about intermittent reinforcement? The point is that a behavior is reinforced more strongly when the response is sporadic, than if it is responded to consistently.

In other words, if you want this behavior to stop, NEVER respond to it. Sometimes responding to it, will make the behavior continue more strongly than if you always respond to it.

If you want a good example of this phenomenon, think "slot machines".

Quote:

The interesting thing that Skinner discovered about intermittant reinforcement and maybe one of Skinner's most important discoveries was that behavior that is reinforced intermittantly is much more difficult to extinguish than behavior that is reinforced continuously.

http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Intermittent_reinforcement[/quote]

0 Replies

Yeah, we talked about that reinforcement technique recently in my contemporary behavioral therapy class.

But I have to confess to feeding the damn troll a few times lately...

0 Replies

Well, I've had two threads that have been taken over by a horde of troll -- and that despite the fact that I have tried very hard not to engage it in any kind of dialogue. Face it: shutting up ain't working. I think it's time for the moderators to display a little less moderation when it comes to this virus.

0 Replies

It's long past time for the moderators to do something about a lot of posters on A2K. Take this thread for example. It has been created to discuss a user on A2K and has nothing at all to do with politics.

If nothing else, it should be moved to general or some other forum.

0 Replies

I think the mods have acted in this case, hence the variety of user names.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I think the mods have acted in this case, hence the variety of user names.

Sorry, but that's the equivalent of stepping on a few cockroaches. It doesn't get rid of the infestation.

0 Replies

What do you suggest?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

What do you suggest?

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/winter/images/atomic-bomb.jpg

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It's long past time for the moderators to do something about a lot of posters on A2K. Take this thread for example. It has been created to discuss a user on A2K and has nothing at all to do with politics.

I admit it has nothing to do with politics, but no, it explicitly wasn't created to discuss "a" user on A2K. It was created to discuss the reaction to him of many A2K members on the "Politics" forum. That's why I deliberately chose this forum for starting this thread in: I wanted to talk to people on the "Politics" board, not the "General" board.

That said, you are perfectly free to remain unconvinced by my motives. If that's your decision, I recommend the same remedy that I recommended to the others: I'm a troll, so stop feeding me with your posts. And if you suspect I'm violating the TOS, by all means call in the mods on me. There's a report button right at the top of my post to make it easy for you.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

What do you suggest?

An "ignore" button, which members can press if they don't want to read another members writing. The effect of the button would be to hide that member's posts from the reader who presses it. I heard a rumor that such a feature may be forthcoming.

0 Replies

I heard that rumor too. We just have to bide our time.

0 Replies

An "ignore" button WOULD be nice. The thing is, a member can train himself to skip over the posts of a member whom he considers a troll. I know that sometimes people have a morbid curiosity, read the troll's posts, and then they become pissed off at the member, but it can be done.

There are certain members whose posts I will not read, and not all of them are trolls. I have found, over time, that I am unable or unwilling to interact with certain people, and simply skip over their writings.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

What do you suggest?

An "ignore" button is fine, as far as it goes. Of course, if everyone ignores their posts, trolls typically interpret that as a sign that they've won the argument, so I don't see that as stopping them from sucking all of the oxygen out of certain threads. If we have an "ignore" button, then we should also have some way of noting (perhaps on a member's information page) just how many other members are actively ignoring him/her/it. That way they'll know how many people can't even see their posts.

As a more immediate remedy, I'd suggest deleting the troll's posts -- all of the troll's posts. Banning trolls merely forces them to adopt multiple personalities, usually seriatim but now more and more simultaneously. Banning, therefore, doesn't stop the trolling, it just delays it briefly until the troll can adopt another alter ego. Wiping out all of the troll's posts, however, discourages the troll from coming back under a new guise, since there's a good chance that its subsequent posts will also be deleted.

That may be a drastic solution, but, as I said before, this is a virus. You don't negotiate with a virus.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

That may be a drastic solution, but, as I said before, this is a virus. You don't negotiate with a virus.

There are at least two problems with that. 1) People who aren't trolls, but who responded to the troll, would look like idiots in retrospect if you remove the post they're responding to. 2) The troll's posts live on in the citations by the people who confronted him. To really delete all the troll's writing, you would have to delete a lot of non-troll posts.

You don't negotiate with a virus, that's true. But you also don't amputate the infected to eradicate the virus infecting their limbs.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

It's far more interesting to me that foxfyre and ticomaya are supportive of Possum than what possum has to say.

It's interesting to me that you managed to reach that conclusion (based on what, my comment that you appear to be fascinated by him?).

But not all that much ...

0 Replies

I think the problem is getting more attention that it deserves. Suggestions that the trolls (a very good description) be silenced merely because they offend our sensibilities is a pretty drastic step. It is censorship, and that is dangerous to open discussion and exchange of views.

My approach is simpler. I don't read those posts which are patently offensive to me. I filter out what I want to read, and what to ignore. There are postings from both Political wings of both Party partisans that never get more than a cursory glance. Some I refuse to acknowledge with a reply, and again it is my choice and the choice of someone else.

When a participant flagerantly violates the TOS, they should be penalized. The range of penalties should reflect the seriousness of the offence and the frequency of objectionable postings. I think there should be a forum (locked against member postings) that lists the offenders and their penalties so that the whole community is told that "justice" has been done.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

I think the problem is getting more attention that it deserves. Suggestions that the trolls (a very good description) be silenced merely because they offend our sensibilities is a pretty drastic step. It is censorship, and that is dangerous to open discussion and exchange of views.

My approach is simpler. I don't read those posts which are patently offensive to me. I filter out what I want to read, and what to ignore. There are postings from both Political wings of both Party partisans that never get more than a cursory glance. Some I refuse to acknowledge with a reply, and again it is my choice and the choice of someone else.

When a participant flagerantly violates the TOS, they should be penalized. The range of penalties should reflect the seriousness of the offence and the frequency of objectionable postings. I think there should be a forum (locked against member postings) that lists the offenders and their penalties so that the whole community is told that "justice" has been done.

This may never happen again, but I completely agree with Ahserman.

Well, ok, there is one thing I'm not sure if I agree with. If there is a forum that lists the offenders and their penalties, I'm afraid that might spur discussion about those offenders and their penalties. "Why did so and so get banned?" "F your mother doesn't sound so bad?" "A2K bans more conservatives than liberals!" And that sort. Though I guess that stuff happens now too.

0 Replies

Banning used to be more effective before free E-mail services became available.

I'm concerned about an "ignore" feature. It seems too easy to silence voices of dissent.

Perhaps the originator of the thread could be given the ability to prevent certain users from posting there.

Perhaps a "stealth ban" in which the troll's posts are accepted, but not displayed to any other users.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
What do you suggest?

An "ignore" button, which members can press if they don't want to read another members writing. The effect of the button would be to hide that member's posts from the reader who presses it. I heard a rumor that such a feature may be forthcoming.

that would be a great service to all...

0 Replies

When Shutting Up isn't Cowardice

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know