Don't feed the troll...

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 15-06-13 21:29, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:18:03 -0700, rusi wrote:
>
>> At least two people -- Alex and Antoon -- have told you that by
>> supporting Nikos, when everyone else wants him off list, you are part of
>> the problem.
>
> And others have publicly thanked me for giving useful answers to Nikos,
> because they have learned from them.

That doesn't contradict that you may be part of the problem. There is
something like the law of diminishing returns. So the kind of respons
that is helpful at the beginnig can become part of the problem when it
becomes part of a seemingly endless cycle.

> You replied to Antoon, and agreed with his position that we should shun
> Nikos, then *immediately* contradicted yourself by stating that Robert
> Kern's helpful answers were "the ideal". And then, just to further
> demonstrate that your actions are at best inconsistent and at worst
> hypocritical, you have since gone on to fire barbs at Nikos instead of
> ignoring him. So please tend to the beam in your own eye before pointing
> at the mote in mine.

So what. We all are somewhat inconsistent and hypocritical. That doesn't
make your responses unproblematic. If in the future you want to respond
like Robert Kern that seems fine enough. But if you continue like you
are now, I'll consider you an enabler.

>> Others -- Fabio -- have indicated their wish to leave the list due to
>> everything becoming Nikos-tainted.
>
> That would be disappointing, but there's nothing I can do about it.

Yes you can. You can stop enabling his behaviour. Now you may think
this is an unacceptable option for and that is something you will
have to decide for yourself but you do have a choice.

>> Everyone is exasperated and talking of kill-filing him.
>
> Then why don't they? "Don't feed the troll" includes trying to beat him
> into submission with insults and half-witty remarks.

Not feeding the troll doesn't help. If people are transgressing the
social norms in a community, they need to get a response that makes
it clear they crossed the line. If they don't you are implicetly
broadcasting the message there is no out of bound behaviour.

> This is not about Nikos. It's about those who are also doing their bit to
> make this community an ugly, hostile place. I won't mention names -- you
> know who you are. Those who take it upon themselves to bait and prod and
> poke Nikos with insults and inflammatory replies.  Appointing themselves
> Internet Police and making ridiculous claims that Nikos ought to be
> reported to the police. Sending bogus complaints to the domain registrar.
> There is a word for this sort of behaviour: bullying. I don't care how
> morally justified you think you are, you are now just as big a part of
> the problem as Nikos.

You are trying to get it both ways. On the one hand you try to argue
that there are no boundaries to what is acceptable by calling people
who do try to enforce such boundaries the Internet Police. On the
other hand you do suggest that playing Internet Police is out of
bound behaviour.

You have to make a choice. Either you don't want to recognize there
can be something like out of bound behaviour and then people making
this community an ugly hostile place is acceptable. Or you think
there is behaviour that is out of bounds and then you must consider
the possiblity that Nikos behaviour is an example of that and that
what you consider ugly responses are people trying to address that
out of bound behaviour and that you responding to Nikos as you do
for the moment is perpetuating Nokos's unacceptable behaviour.

-- 
Antoon Pardon