Don't feed the troll...

[rurpy at yahoo.com]

On 06/19/2013 04:57 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> 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.

No, "blame" implies assumption of a particular point of
view.  From a troll's viewpoint, newsgroup participants that
*don't* respond are to blame because they deprive the troll
of his fun.

Our viewpoint is that of newsgroup participants.  We assume
they have volition, else this whole thread is pointless.
Since they have a choice of how to respond, then if they 
chose to respond in a way that produces an undesirable outcome, 
then it is fair "blame" them.

The troll is outside the volition of the group and so his
appearance is effectively an act of nature.

>>> 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.

I am not "drawing the line for them", I am drawing it for
me.  I think you see a non-existent conflict because you are 
assume there is only one line.  I do not make that assumption.

If you think Nikos has crossed your line, then I acknowledge 
your right not to help him.  I even acknowledge your right
to flame him and encourage others to do so. 

My argument is that if you exercise your right (the flamage
part) the results on the newsgroup, when considered on a 
best outcome for the most people basis, will be less good 
than if you choose not to exercise your right.

>> 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.

The costs are different in magnitude.  Roughly:

1.People willing to read and possibly respond helpfully
  to Nikos.
2.People annoyed by Nikos who want him gone and don't want to
  see anything by him or in his threads. 
(and if people find you convincing) 
3.People annoyed by Nikos but willing to read his threads in 
  order to send antagonistic posts.

If people ignore your call to spam Nikos with antagonistic 
posts (and stop the considerable amount of such activity 
already occurring) then the costs (difference compared to 
a no-Nikos newsgroup) might be:

 Group 1: 0
 Group 2: 1 (killfile Nikos and kill or skip his new threads
          when encountered.)

If people continue to send both unhelpful and antagonistic 
posts to Nikos:

 Group 1: 5 (can't killfile posters because they post in other
          non-Nikos threads.  Have to skip large volume of junk
          posts based on visual peek at contents or recognition
          of poster as a vigilante.)
 Group 2: 1 (killfile Nikos and kill or skip his new threads
          when encountered.)

As for those annoyed by Nikos but who
 > "can't easily filter the valuable contributions
 > in [a Nikos] thread from the nth repeated answer to the same
 > question"
how is that different from any non-Nikos thread other than that 
your proposed action that makes it harder?

Of course all the above is not to be taken seriously beyond
the general point I'm trying to illustrate (that the costs 
are non-symmetrical).  Nor taken as complete -- other factors
like freedom of expression also need consideration.

> 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.

Of course.  We all do that subconsciously every time we 
read a newsgroup.  But that is not what we are discussing

We are discussing the effects of two different policies
of different interest groups on the newsgroup.  You advocate
a policy of not responding helpfully and responding aggressively
to those exhibiting "undesirable" behavior where "undesirable"
is defined by you or some vague group consensus. 

I advocate a policy not responding aggressively at all and 
responding helpfully or not at all based on a personal evaluation 
of the "undesirable" behavior.

So the question to answer is: how do those different policies 
affect the cost/benefits of the different groups and which one 
leads to the greatest good for the most?

>> 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. 

Nothing involving human behavior is totally clear.  There are
certainly those who advocate responding aggressively to trolls.
My impression, supported by the widespread use of the phrase
"don't feed the troll", along with the rationality of the main 
argument for it, "trolls seek attention so not responding is the
most effective way of getting them to leave", is that that is 
still the majority view.  

Of course that presupposes the goal is getting the troll to leave.
I said, trolls can feed group participants too by providing
an excuse to vent anger and it is possible to conceive of other
goals that some might have as well.

And in the current case, I am not convinced that Nikos is a troll
although he does engage in behavior that comes across as trollish.

>> 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.

Again no, my point was the costs are not the same.

> 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.

It's coercion because its *only* significant effect is to 
raise the cost for me.

> 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.

Being somewhat anarchistic myself, I have a certain sympathy
for that point of view.

Of course you'll grant me the same right, yes?  When another 
substantial part of the community is annoyed by your part's 
obnoxious and hostile posts you will accept our right to respond
with obnoxious and hostile posts directed at your part, right?  
And I certainly will expect anyone annoyed by my posts to your 
part to respond in kind with lots of obnoxious posts to me and 
my part.  And so on...

Does that really sound to you like good policy to advocate?

>> 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.

Right.  Which is why tolerance is so important.

Tolerance involves not reacting to every irritation with
a hostile response likely to provoke more of the same.
It also implies not assuming what seems like trolling to
you is trolling to me.

>> 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.

No, What you were proposing was total boycott on any helpful 
responses to Nikos and to continue and to increase the flood 
of antagonistic posts to Nikos to drive him out.

I too am fine with someone not responding to Nikos if unhappy
with his method of interaction, either in general or on a post-by
post basis.  If fact, I think I've been saying that all along.

>>> 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. 

I haven't noticed that so much but maybe that because the
posts from those willing to deal with Nikos have been a tiny 
fraction of those from the vigilante side.

>> 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 I said above, we all have our own lines.  Your hypothetical 
would be over the line for me because of the high risk of death
or injury to others.  Someone creating new newsgroup threads that
can be ignored does not rise to that level of seriousness and 
does not cross my line.  Nor does the fact that he might create
an insecure website when weighed with his right to try and (I
hope eventually) learn.

>> 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. 

But you've said you believe *any* helpful response to Nikos 
will "encourage his assholery behaviour".  So there in no "need"
to provide any helpful response to Nikos.  But then, I guess 
that is a true statement for responding to anyone here, 
depending on what "need" means.

> 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.

And yet you are the one advocating diluting any valuable 
contributions in the thread with hostile and negative replies; 
your advocated action is the source of that coercion.

> 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.

It's not the lack of "need", it is the harmful consequent effects.