5
   

When Shutting Up isn't Cowardice

 
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 10:28 am
I dislike rancorous discussion and rarely post in the political forum.

Trolls are distressing, but even more distressing is the way they tempt members I admire and respect to descend to their level.

Unfortunately viruses spread.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 10:37 am
DrewDad wrote:
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.

You would not be able to silence anyone by pressing your "ignore" button. You would only deafen yourself to any posts by members on your personal list of "ignored" people. If other people enjoy the posts of someone you're ignoring, they won't press their "ignore" button, and so can continue to read them. In short, it's an "ignore" button, not a "censor" button.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 10:44 am
I think DrewDad may have meant that if, for example, a pro-Bush person didn't want to listen to what anti-Bush people had to say the pro-Busher could just "ignore" the anti-Busher. But I doubt that would happen, as if people are posting about politics at all, it's probably at least partly because they want to argue with/ refute what people on the other side are saying. (The ones who aren't at all interested in argument stay out anyway, as Noddy indicates.)
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 10:48 am
This past weekend I was at a get-together for the other forum I frequent. That forum has an ignore button which is quite easy to work with, ie. you can still elect to look at individual posts while having the member on ignore.

We had a bit of a chat about what we use the ignore button for.

I've discovered that I'm least likely to use the ignore button on people I disagree with (politically, spiritually, whatever). I'm most likely to use the ignore button on people who are - simply put - rude (regardless of whether or not they agree with my views).

~~~~~~

I'm looking forward to the new A2K - it seems like it'll be a bit more of a free-for-all in some ways - but with more personal control over what individuals see.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 10:54 am
sozobe wrote:
I think DrewDad may have meant that if, for example, a pro-Bush person didn't want to listen to what anti-Bush people had to say the pro-Busher could just "ignore" the anti-Busher. But I doubt that would happen, as if people are posting about politics at all, it's probably at least partly because they want to argue with/ refute what people on the other side are saying. (The ones who aren't at all interested in argument stay out anyway, as Noddy indicates.)

I see. And I agree with you that it wouldn't be much of a problem. For example, I very much doubt that liberals like nimh and conservatives like georgeob1 would ignore each other, for just the reason you mention. One the other hand, I can imagine that the more zealous partisans of both sides might choose to ignore each other, but I can't see any harm in that. In terms of substance, they're ignoring each other anyway.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 10:56 am
Ain't that the truth.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 11:07 am
There are certain posters whom I ignore consistently. I see no need for a button to do so.
By the way, I impressed by virtually all of the thinking here.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 04:43 pm
I agree that it's best to ignore those who routinely violate one's sense of fair play here. And to prove this (to myself, at least), I just deleted a snarky post I wrote in honor of one such individual...
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 05:49 pm
Thomas wrote:
sozobe wrote:
I think DrewDad may have meant that if, for example, a pro-Bush person didn't want to listen to what anti-Bush people had to say the pro-Busher could just "ignore" the anti-Busher. But I doubt that would happen, as if people are posting about politics at all, it's probably at least partly because they want to argue with/ refute what people on the other side are saying. (The ones who aren't at all interested in argument stay out anyway, as Noddy indicates.)

I see. And I agree with you that it wouldn't be much of a problem. For example, I very much doubt that liberals like nimh and conservatives like georgeob1 would ignore each other, for just the reason you mention. One the other hand, I can imagine that the more zealous partisans of both sides might choose to ignore each other, but I can't see any harm in that. In terms of substance, they're ignoring each other anyway.



Sure.

But...disagreement is one thing, absolutely persistent trolling another.

Shrugs...I don't have a say, but I DID think persistent trolling was against TOS, and I think it a pity it is allowed to continue.

For starters, it utterly clogs up the New Posts facility.....when A2k is slow, I often do not get all pages of new posts to load, and what I do get is nothing but thread after thread to which the only "new" addition is trolling by one member.


I can happily ignore said troll, but it is really annoying when it means I have great difficulty accessing sensible or clever stuff because of it.

Anyhoo, like said, I have no voice...but I think the getting rid of the stuff deposited by a very few members is not censorship, it is waste management.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 06:07 pm
dlowan wrote:
I DID think persistent trolling was against TOS, and I think it a pity it is allowed to continue.

It isn't allowed to continue; there's just a practical limit to the time unpaid moderators can spend enforcing prohibitions. A friend of mine run a community on MSN once. She ended up spending most managing work on her site on pest control. That's a thankless, tedious, and frustrating task if I've ever seen one. From the beginning, she wanted to make me her deputy. And from the beginning, I declined the offer. I knew I wouldn't last for two months in an online pest control job. And that site was about 100 times smaller than A2K. The people who run our community here must be working long hours indeed, even if we don't see them do it.

And it shows: Overall, they are succeeding admirably at limiting infestations. I couldn't think of an online community that's better managed in this regard, especially not by volunteers. But A2K is open for everyone on the internet to join. On a site like this, you cannot reasonably expect perfect troll control.
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 06:30 pm
Hear, here, Thomas.

For those who may believe that moderation is easy, glamorous and always black and white, simple decision-making, I got news for ya.

It is none of the above. And, as the site gets larger and larger, it gets more and more complex. One wrinkle comes along, and then another, and then three more and five more, and seventy-three more, and suddenly people like me are dreaming about A2K, about moderating, and wake up in the morning wondering what new devilry is up and about and what we will have to deal with.

Every day, we ask ourselves -- what is the new thing that we are going to be confronted with today? Where are we going to spend our time? And we have to use it efficiently because, surprise, surprise, we have lives outside of A2K. We have families, jobs, hobbies. We get sick and we get tired and although we tried our damnedest, we sometimes lose patience. After all, we're people, not androids.

Every now and then, people ask what others have learned from A2K. I'll tell you some of what I've learned.
    I have learned how persistent some trolls can be. I have learned just how much spam is really being pumped into cyberspace (far more than the general population here ever sees, by the way). I have learned that, for every variant I think I've found in all of the ways to try to violate the TOS, someone inevitably comes up with another one. I have learned that people who don't contact the Help Desk to actually ask about suspensions or pulled posts or locked topics will make up all kinds of stuff to somehow explain that -- and, of course, to make my staff look bad.


I have also learned that I actually like doing this. I have also learned that the larger the site gets, the more it entails, and the more dependent we continue to be on Help Desk communications. I have also learned that, for some bizarre reason, not everyone likes using the Help Desk, even though the staff are courteous and respectful and do their best to answer questions and handle all contingencies. But the staff are berated for not snapping to it fast enough to handle something, or are whined at for not caving to a poster's demands. Yeah, I've seen that, too. I'm not here to cry about the poor old moderators and I've been kicked around a lot and it doesn't bother me about myself, per se, but I don't like seeing them kicked around.

They are doing the best that they can. But you need to help them. Use the frekshtinkeneh Help Desk. You really want to show your appreciation for them? Don't sit and emptily thank them and give them vague accolades. Use the report button and help them do their jobs. Thank you.

{steps off soap box, hands microphone to someone else}

PS Oh, and re the trolls -- Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but only the pig enjoys it. - Cale Yarborough.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 06:30 pm
Thomas wrote:
dlowan wrote:
I DID think persistent trolling was against TOS, and I think it a pity it is allowed to continue.

It isn't allowed to continue; there's just a practical limit to the time unpaid moderators can spend enforcing prohibitions. A friend of mine run a community on MSN once. She ended up spending most managing work on her site on pest control. That's a thankless, tedious, and frustrating task if I've ever seen one. From the beginning, she wanted to make me her deputy. And from the beginning, I declined the offer. I knew I wouldn't last for two months in an online pest control job. And that site was about 100 times smaller than A2K. The people who run our community here must be working long hours indeed, even if we don't see them do it.

And it shows: Overall, they are succeeding admirably at limiting infestations. I couldn't think of an online community that's better managed in this regard, especially not by volunteers. But A2K is open for everyone on the internet to join. On a site like this, you cannot reasonably expect perfect troll control.


Believe me Thomas, I don't...I just think the troll tolerance here has become too generous ie I am cavilling re troll POLICY, not practice with its time limitations.


Shrugs. You probably won't believe me, but there it is. I have been here long enough, and I am (or was, I am here much less now) around when the cleaning up hasn't been done yet, to know pretty much what the demands are for the volunteers are, and what they clean up, so your operating assumption is quite wrong. But nemmind.


Dunno know why I bother to express it though, it just peeves me when it gets to a point where I have to waste enormous amounts of time checking to see if anything interesting has been added to threads apart from trollery.

Probably simply because the occasion presented itself.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 06:47 pm
A slight tangent, but related issue. I've been seeing a marked increase in ad hominems and have allllllllmost reported some, especially in the last two weeks. Since ad homs breed, it gets to be hard to isolate - I'm sure a problem for the mods. Some, er, lightweight adhoms have always gone through, and a number are said in jest. One doesn't want to go crazy reporting, being censorious. And yet... the escalation of them makes discussion unnecessarily unpleasantly uncivil.

To the good, when I read smart people with different opinions argue civilly, it is a pleasure.

My question is, then, do the mods want to see egregious adhoms reported?
I'll suppose the answer is yes, in that it is against the T.O.S.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 06:51 pm
jespah wrote:
Hear, here, Thomas.

For those who may believe that moderation is easy, glamorous and always black and white, simple decision-making, I got news for ya.

It is none of the above. And, as the site gets larger and larger, it gets more and more complex. One wrinkle comes along, and then another, and then three more and five more, and seventy-three more, and suddenly people like me are dreaming about A2K, about moderating, and wake up in the morning wondering what new devilry is up and about and what we will have to deal with.

But - and I apologise if this is a naive question - wouldnt it save you a lot of time as well if you did something that, if I understand her right, Dlowan is asking about? Like - here comes the perhaps naive question - this is one thing I dont get. A poster suddenly disappears - in all likelihood because he was banned. For some good reason. He then comes back, under a new moniker. It appears, to my impression, that no action is then taken until he makes a bannable offense again under his new moniker. Which, if he circles the exact ToS smoothly enough, can be quite a bit later, though he'll cause moderators and fellow posters plenty of headache in the meantime.

Wouldnt it save a lot of moderating time if, once a poster is banned, he is taken down too as soon as he appears under a new name?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 06:53 pm
I do note that I have not (yet) been censured although I think, on many occassions, I should have been.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 06:53 pm
jespah wrote:
After all, we're people, not androids.


Yeah, right. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 07:38 pm
This thread has more life than i would have thought. I kinda sorta agree with the idea of an ignore button. It would tend, thoughl, to fracture discussion, as some people would see what others were ignoring, and a few might respond to it--and you'd still have the disruption, which is what it is all about.

One thing that does work, though not all the time, is to accurately and effectively refute what another member is presenting. In one recent thread, a member was making a contention which was based on what that member wanted to believe, as opposed to what the member could substantiate with off-site references. I insisted that member was wrong, because the situation actually was far different than the member was describing, and found information off-site to support what i had written. That member did not subsequently respond. That doesn't mean that the member in question thought i was right, necessarily, and the member in question might simply have had no further interest in the thread of discussion.

But it leads me to point out something no one else has pointed out here, and that is that this is still assumed to be a knowledge site. I hate Hitler threads--i hate them because i have never yet seen a one which presented any original ideas, and because the man was scum who doesn't merit the attention he gets. Garden variety tinpot dictators are a dime a dozen in history, and Hitler never showed any skill other than gutter politics; he wasn't even as good at what he did as a great many others throughout history. So, i largely ignore the Hitler threads, unless i drop by to ridicule the fascination people have for him, or to point out what a thorough-going loser he was. But when people come here to try to make out that he was a military genius (an all too common claim), then i feel that i should respond seriously to point out that this is definitely not so.

So, what to do when a troll shows up and starts filling the site with misinformation? I think that one is then obliged to attempt to dispell the false information, while also not responding directly to the troll. Attack the idea and ignore the troll. Not easy to do, i know.

But if you're ignoring someone, and they're peddling the old "history is written by the victors" horsiepoop, you won't know it, and won't be able to challenge that. Obviously, i'm obsessed with history--but there are any number of topics to which the same situation applies. Our Farmerman does yoeman's service in attacking the anti-evolution propagandists. If he just put them on ignore, how many students would read the cow flops which pass for science by the propagandists, and never hear a dissenting voice?

It probably is useful to ignore the trolls, but as Phoenix points out, it must be total. At the same time, the foul notions they often drop off here should not be left to fester. We may ignore the trolls, but we should not ignore egregious false information they leave. That largely doesn't effect the Political forum, of course, where opinion rules and reliable information is usually the red-eared step child.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 07:38 pm
Dys, I have not seen any (of your) posts that would have justified being censored. Being shot...perhaps.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 07:41 pm
LOL
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 08:01 pm
nimh wrote:
jespah wrote:
Hear, here, Thomas.

For those who may believe that moderation is easy, glamorous and always black and white, simple decision-making, I got news for ya.

It is none of the above. And, as the site gets larger and larger, it gets more and more complex. One wrinkle comes along, and then another, and then three more and five more, and seventy-three more, and suddenly people like me are dreaming about A2K, about moderating, and wake up in the morning wondering what new devilry is up and about and what we will have to deal with.

But - and I apologise if this is a naive question - wouldnt it save you a lot of time as well if you did something that, if I understand her right, Dlowan is asking about? Like - here comes the perhaps naive question - this is one thing I dont get. A poster suddenly disappears - in all likelihood because he was banned. For some good reason. He then comes back, under a new moniker. It appears, to my impression, that no action is then taken until he makes a bannable offense again under his new moniker. Which, if he circles the exact ToS smoothly enough, can be quite a bit later, though he'll cause moderators and fellow posters plenty of headache in the meantime.

Wouldnt it save a lot of moderating time if, once a poster is banned, he is taken down too as soon as he appears under a new name?


Actually, we've tried that, and found it means we play a gotcha game with that person (e. g. they just look for all sorts of ways to circumvent and show up when they think we aren't looking or whatever) and it doesn't save us much time at all.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How to use the new able2know - Discussion by Craven de Kere
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
I'm the developer - Discussion by Nick Ashley
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
A2K censors tags? - Discussion by hingehead
New A2K Bugs - Discussion by sozobe
New A2K annoyances - Discussion by sozobe
The a2k world is changing 3: about voting - Discussion by Craven de Kere
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Welcome to the 'New' My Posts - Discussion by Nick Ashley
The "I get folksonomy" club - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 01:07:24