Don't feed the troll...

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 19-06-13 05:46, rurpy at yahoo.com schreef:
> On 06/18/2013 02:22 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> Op 17-06-13 19:56, rurpy at yahoo.com schreef:
> I was using the photodetector/light system as a emotion-free 
> analog of the troll/troll-feeders positive feedback system for 
> which you claimed it was clearly the troll's fault for initiating 
> the feedback condition.  My intent was to point out that cause 
> and effect are intertwined in feedback systems and it is equally
> valid to blame those responding to the troll for the end result
> as to blame the troll.  And, since occasional trolls are to 
> be expected, one is even justified in putting the preponderance 
> of blame on the responders.
I don't remember making such a claim. What I do remember is
you among others claiming that the problem was not (so much)
the troll (Nikos) but the others. I only made the remark that
you can't claim the troll is not a problem if he provokes
behaviour you find problematic.

And your last conclusion is unsound. You forget to include the
fact that once a troll appeared, people reacting badly to the
troll is also to be expected. So with regards to this aspect
there is no difference between the troll and the responders,
both being expected and so no ground to put the preponderance
of blame on the responders.


>> I don't care whether he has trouble developping debuging skills
>> or not. Just as I don't care if someone has trouble learning
>> to swim or not. If it is reasonable to expect those skill in
>> a specific environment, you are just rude if you enter without
>> those skill and expect others to get you out of the troubles
>> you probably will fall victim to.
> *Drowning:
> I can understand your feeling but being realistic (whether 
> you care about that or not) it happens all the time and other 
> aspects of society accept that.  Around where I live we have 
> mountain rescue units to retrieve both competent people who 
> have had bad luck and total idiots who shouldn't be outside 
> without a guardian.  There are places the penalize the idiots 
> in various ways but both the practice and the line between 
> acceptable and unacceptable risk are controversial.  I don't
> accept you drawing the line for me, especially when I have 
> my own line formed by my own experience.
Well others don't appreciate you drawing the lines for them
either. If you think others have no business drawing the line
for what is acceptable on this mailinglist/newsgroup then you
have no business drawing such a line yourself.

> Those who are annoyed excessively by Nikos can (relatively) 
> easily ignore him by filtering him and his threads and 
> continue to participate in the group as it was before Nikos.  
>
> However, those who aren't bothered (as much) by him and are 
> willing to read or participate in his threads can not easily 
> ignore anti-Nikos hate posts because they can't easily filter 
> out those while leaving the non-hate ones and without also 
> filtering non-Nikos threads.  (Perhaps there are newsgroup 
> readers that allow one to killfile an individual but only in 
> certain threads but I doubt they are common.)
I find this a very one-sided view. Those annoyed excessively
by Nikos can't easily ignore him without a cost. There may
be people involved in such a tread they value and like to
read. They can't easily filter the valuable contributions
in such a thread from the nth repeated answer to the same
question either.

You ask of others they should tolerate this cost Nikos
brings on for them but you protest when you have to take
on this kind of cost yourself.

As far as I see you have just the same options as those
bothered by Nikos. Make some kind of cost benefit analysis
and decide on that basis whether you consider it worth your
while to continue reading/contributing to a particular
thread.

> Now its pretty clear that (in general) such hate-posts do not
> serve to drive away their target and often increase the volume
> and prolong the miscreant's stay.  So their main utility is to
> drive away those who wish to participate in Nikos' threads.
I don't know it is that clear. I have the impression it can be
rather effective in cases where the whole community makes it
clear trolls are not welcome. Of course if part of the community
is more bothered by those making trolls feel unwelcome than by
the trolls themselves, such strive will of course attract them. 

> While you may consider that a good thing, I consider it coercion
> and an attempt to forcibly restrict my free choice.  It is also
> the same behavior you accuse Nikos of -- being offensive to 
> force others to do what you want.  If you want me to go along
> with your proposal then convince me with rational arguments.
No I don't particularly consider that a good thing. I just find
your view one-sided. Yes indeed it is in some way the same behaviour
I accuse Nikos of. What they are doing is upping the cost for you
in participating in some threads, just as Nikos is upping the cost
for them in participating in some threads. The main difference is
for whom those costs go up. In the first case it is for the Nikos
botherers and in the second case it is for you.

And when the costs go up for others, you somehow thinks they should
deal with the unpleasant choice life has dealt them, but when
the costs goes up for you it suddenly is about coercion and forcibly
restricting free choice.

Personnaly once a troll shows up, I prefer others to make him feel
unwelcome. There is nothing wrong with making someone feel unwelcome
if he is behaving in a way that is annoying a substantial part of
the community. And if others are somehow behaving in a way that
will contribute to that annoying behaviour, there is nothing wrong
in making those feel unconfortable in continuing with that, either.

> The alternative (for you to filter Nikos) does not restrict your 
> choice significantly -- indeed you are exercising your choice by
> filtering out what you don't want to see.
I don't appreciate it when you decide for others which alternatives
are restricting their choice significantly and which do not. Others
can have a very different appreciation of things than you have.

> Another asymmetric aspect is that the cure you propose can be
> implemented anytime -- if Nikos continues to be offensive your 
> proposal is still available a month from now and likely with
> more support.  This is not true of the alternate approach 
> though -- you can't decide to try being helpful once someone
> is gone [*1].  So if there is any doubt about the best approach, 
> prudence argues for delay.
What I propose is to stop encouraging his trollish behaviour.
In point of fact Steve has already began doing so by demanding
Nikos somehow shows he has done relevant work himself before
wanting to help him further. Which I am perfectly fine with.


>
>> It is all the same to me. I don't care much about what the most
>> adequate term would be for his kind of behaviour. And of course
>> he is too narcistic too realise he started with the asshole
>> behaviour. And in my opinion he will continue to be an asshole
>> as long as people continue to drag him out of the deep each time
>> he behaves like an asshole and jumps in without the necessary
>> skills.
> Fine, that is your opinion.  And you may be right.  But I
> don't find people who state with certainty what other people
> will do in the future to be very convincing.  Nor does the
> exaggeration, fact-twisting and emotionalism in most of 
> anti-Nikos posts make for a good case.
That can be true but I find a significant part of exaggeration,
fact-twisting and emotionalism in those who want to deal with
the Nikos bothered too. 

> People jump into lots of things without the necessary skills
> all the time.  I have myself more than once.  I see nothing 
> wrong with lending a helping hand when possible and I don't
> feel qualified to sit as judge and jury as to whether he should
> or should not be running a web site.  He says his clients are
> his friends.  And after Chris' shenanigans, if they continue 
> to stay with him, it is certainly their choice.
Sometimes the best hand you can lend to someone is making it
clear they are not ready because they lack the basics.
Helping a hand in that case can help them muddy on somehow
but can also move them into the direction of a bigger disaster
than before you decided to lend a helping hand.

And what about you lending a hand in behaviour that is annoying
others? If someone is not fit to drive and doesn't know how
to get the engine started, will you help him with that so that
he can then annoy the others in traffic with his erratic driving?

> As for community standards, I think you should have more faith
> in the participants here -- what will likely be effective in
> causing Nikos to leave, is not hate mail but inability to get 
> help here -- and that will be the natural result if he continues
> to annoy people and, one by one, those willing to help give up 
> and stop.  There is no need for you to coerce those willing to
> try to deal with him to speed things up when you have the tools
> to mostly ignore him.

There is no need for those willing to help Nikos, to do so in a
way that encourages his assholery behaviour. There is no need
to coerse people into making a choice between leaving the thread
and missing out on some valuable contributions on the one hand
and staying and trying to find the worth while contributions on
the other hand.

Somehow this lack of need is not enough for you to stop but
you do seem to expect it is enough for others to stop.

-- 
Antoon Pardon