Don't feed the troll...

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 19-06-13 23:13, rurpy at yahoo.com schreef:
> 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:

>> 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.

This seems a rather artificial division. Especially because the
immediate cause that led to this discussion is Nikos. As the
situation is now I see very little reason to exclude Nikos
from the group. He has made a substantial number of contribution
and has received a substantial number of replies. So on what
grounds would you put Nikos outside the volition of this group?

> 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.

Possibly. But I don't consider utiltarism such a good measuring
stick for these kind of situations. Too easy to neglect the
concerns of individuals or small groups.

> 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.)

I don't accept this as the way costs should be compared? Why are
you adding the costs of the flamers together? Each flamer is
an individual who should only be responsible for his own
contribution. As such it seems that the cost each flamer
is inducing is comparable to the cost Nikos is inducing.

> 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?

It is different because Non-Nikos threads in general don't contain
so many repeated questions as Nikos threads.

> 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?

And I don't think that is the right question. It leads to people
who are less annoyed by this kind of behaviour to ignore or brush
of people who are more annoyed and attempts by the former to
make the latter shoulder the full burden while not bearing any
costs themselves and even behaving in such a way as to increase
the annoyance of the latter group.

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

That seems a non sequitur to me.

>>> 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.

This hardly seems fair. We are not talking about some one who
did a faux pas and was instantly flamed. We are talking about
someone who ignored multiple attemps pointing out where his
behaviour was unacceptable, who even seemed to think we should
just accept his antisocial behaviour because his intention
were good but showed no concern for the frustration he was
causing. Even with those who were willing to help him.

Trying to frame those that reacted to all this with flames,
as people with low tolerance who react to every irritation
with a hostile response doesn't look like an accurate description.

>> 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 have said something that can be interpretted as the first.
But I made it clear because Nikos had allready receiced a
ton of help like links of which he showed very little interest
in actually reading. My boycot was meant for until he could
show some results of him actively trying to solve his problems
instead of us keeping to spoon feed him.

> 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.

But that is not enough for me. If someone is behaving in a trollish
way, those continuing to help this person even after it has been
shown he is insensitive to attempts to correct his behaviour, are
becoming part of the problem. We are now talking of people in the
community enabling trollish behaviour and so are contributing to
the discomfort of a substantial part of the group.

You can't ask restrain from this subgroup of people for the good of
the whole group while at the same time showing no concerns for the 
discomfort of this subgroup you are contributing to.

>> 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.

People could make it clear that they will only answer contributions
of Nikos in which he doesn't behave like an asshole. In that case
behaving like an asshole would not be encouraged and Nikos would
still have a chance of having his questions answerd. As it was
a number of people seemed too eager to help Nikos no matter how
much he was behaving like an asshole. Like for the upteenth time
changing his identity, thwarting all persons who killfiled him.