Don't feed the troll...

[rurpy at yahoo.com]

On 06/21/2013 01:32 PM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> 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:
>>> 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?

"made contributions"?  I think you mean "asked questions".
He has not (as far as I tell) been a participant here in
the past, has not tried to help or participated in any other 
threads, seems to be interested only in getting his own 
problems solved, and not shown many signs of concern with 
any form of group consensus(es), not responded to requests.  
Isn't all that in large part the basis of your objection 
to him?  "Outside the volition of this group" seems like 
a reasonable description to me.

>> 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.

And your alternative that doesn't "neglect concerns of individuals
or small groups" would be what?  Something that neglects the concerns
of the majority?  I would love to see a proposed solution that 
satisfies the concerns of every individual and group here.  And
of course since you maintain above that trolls themselves are 
legitimate members of the newsgroup, it should also satisfy their
desires as well.  But sadly, in the real world there are conflicting 
desires so I don't think your alternative exists.

>> 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. 

I haven't a clue what you mean by this.  What does 
"responsible" have to do with it?

They are "added" because each flame post imposes a cost to 
skip so the total cost is roughly the sum of the individual 
posts skipped. 

> As such it seems that the cost each flamer
> is inducing is comparable to the cost Nikos is inducing.

Each post by Nikos stimulates several flames so the aggregate 
cost of the flame posts is several times Nikos' posts.
And if you've killfiled Nikos the cost of Nikos' posts are 
roughly zero.

>> 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.

But whatever that difference is, your proposed solution 
increases the cost since it raises the ratio of garbage 
posts to valuable posts.  Whatever the ratio was before 
the intervention of your vigilantes, it will be higher 
after.

>> 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.

Addressed in more detail below.  No "brushing off" involved, 
only an attempt at the most reasonable tradeoff for everybody 
(which means not agreeing to the vigilantes desire to engage 
in flame wars with people that annoy them.)

>> It's coercion because its *only* significant effect is to
>> raise the cost for me.
> 
> That seems a non sequitur to me.

Sorry, it was out of order.  It was in response to:
>>> 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.
which was snipped in your quote.

I.e., responding to your assertion that my characterization 
of the effect of your "flame 'em to hell" policy as coercion 
was just a rhetorical trick.  No, there is legitimate reason 
to call it coercion.

>>>> 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.

What you see as a "ton of help like links" I submit did 
not seem that way to Nikos.  Consider the "help" in one 
thread:
 |> This is all you need to read:
 |>  http://docs.python.org/2/reference/expressions.html#boolean-operations 
Ignoring that the link is to Python2 while Nikos was 
using Python3 (and clearly did understand enough about the
differences to assume it was still relevant), the contents
start with "In the context of Boolean operations..." when
Nikos' confusion (IIRC) was due to not understanding even 
the concept of a "boolean context" and the distinction 
between True/False and true/false (which is not even 
documented there but rather in 
 http://docs.python.org/2/library/stdtypes.html#truth-value-testing
although not too clearly if you don't already get it.)

As I pointed out previously the Python docs are not a good 
reference for people who don't understand the basic
concepts or terminology.  Same is true of Wikipedia which 
is great for citations to support claims or for looking up
specific facts if you know what you want, but as a learning 
resource is awful.

And when he replies explicitly that he found the links "too 
technical" that is interpreted as "refused to read". [*1]

Even serious attempts to help are often not helpful since
it is difficult for someone with a lot of experience to 
adopt the mindset a beginner, possibly one who does even 
understand basic programming concepts or things like how to 
isolate a problem.  But when the recipient of the help still 
doesn't understand, they are told, "it has been explained to 
you multiple times, you must be trolling".  Similarly when 
they fail to do something because they don't understand
the point of doing it or because they resist being commanded 
to do it, or the reason was explained in a way that made 
no sense to them.

As for other links like esr's Smart Questions, it has some 
good advise but it is also in some places a very elitist
and abrasive document.  Offering it as something to be read, 
fine.  Insisting that someone acknowledge and adhere to 
every point therein -- I too might well respond hostily
to such a demand.

Besides the inappropriate technical level of much of 
the "help" is also the question of english ability.  
These days that can be an issue with many posters, both
with their understanding of answers and in phrasing 
responses that don't meet the "respectfulness" standards 
demanded by some here.  And there are personality issues
like Aspergers and dyslexia and other traits.  There are 
cultural differences with the nature and expectation of 
politeness being varied.

So what is obvious "help" to you may not be so much so to 
the recipient and in the face of all these differences 
IMO tolerance is very helpful.  

Again I'm not claiming that my interpretation of Nikos'
responses must be correct; I may be wrong and he may be
reading this and laughing his ass off at my naivete, but 
I reject your certainty that your reading as pure troll is
the only correct one.  And even if I am wrong in this particular
case, I think tolerance is helpful for maintaining a non-
hostile environment in general.

>> 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.

Which, were it true, applicable equally to you of course.

But you are again misrepresenting things in claiming I have
"no concern".  Of course I do.  That after thinking about
various options and concluding that the one I favor will
have overall the best results, and that yours won't, in no
way means I have "no concern".  

>>> 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. 

You are not stating clearly what you mean.  I am guessing 
that you want *everyone* here to not answer *any* questions 
until *all* behavior you and the vigilantes define as 
"asshole" behavior by the miscreant stops.

And of course in the meantime you and the vigilantes 
will engage in a flame war against the miscreant.

While you object to some people "enabling" trolls by trying
to be helpful, you seem to see nothing wrong with you and 
fellow vigilantes enabling trolls by engaging in insult, 
ridicule and pseudo-help flame wars with them.  And you seem 
to have no concern for the many people who will be discomforted
by the large volume of negative and unpleasant posts your 
enabling produces [*2].

I get that you believe what you say, but the way to see it
implemented is to convince me and others that you are right
by making a good logical case for it, something I think
you are failing at.

The way not to do it is with intimidating responses to those
who disagree with you, like, "you have been asked not to enable
(by our definition) trolls, and if you persist, we will treat
you as a troll."

> 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.

Looking at a few samples it looks to me like he has 
posted under only two identities: support at superhost.gr and 
nikos.gr33k at gmail.com.  Many people here do the same (eg from
work and home for example).  I don't think you have grounds
to complain about that.

As for him changing his display name all the time, yes it 
is a problem for those of us using inferior tools like Google 
Groups that show only the name without email address.  One 
could respond the same way I have often been responded to: 
use a decent tool.

But I don't consider that a legitimate response so I agree
with you and had intended to ask Nikos to stop changing the
name the next occasion I had to interact with him.

But one has a choice of how to do that.

1. "You keep changing your email account.  Use one account and
   stop being an asshole, troll!"

2. "Stop changing your email name."

3. "There are people here want to be able to filter out your threads
   but it is hard to do because you often change your email name.
   Would you please just pick one or two names and use them 
   consistently?  Not only will that help reduce the number of 
   people who make angry posts because they are pissed off but
   you are likely to get more helpful answers because the people
   reading your threads are people willing to look at your issues."

(1) is wrong, unfair, aggressive and provocative and likely to
result in more flamage in response and no change in behavior.

(2) is aggressive.  The poster has no authority to order Nikos 
or anyone else here to do something.  (This kind of response is
unfortunately common here and I wish the people doing it would 
stop.)

(3) is IMO the most likely to be effective, particularly if
combined with a serious attempt to provide a helpful answer.
It may have to be repeated more than once.  And it might 
well be ineffective if there are also a lot of (1) and (2) 
type responses.

Of course if the behavior persists, particularly without any 
attempt to explain why, then one ups the "trollness" rating
a few notches and when it exceeds one's threshold, stops trying 
to help.  Soon, with neither help nor flamage to respond to 
there is no reason for the troll to remain.  Problem solved 
but with less overall disruption and negativity (since you've 
been filtering his threads having made the troll determination 
earlier than me).

----
[*1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/car7cJJjZdE/ib3p8-uHz9oJ
[*2] There was an entire thread on the issue a short time ago:
"Aggressive language on python-list", 2012-10-13
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/comp.lang.python/RfhmqYgBxu8/discussion