Don't feed the troll...

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 23-06-13 16:29, rurpy at yahoo.com schreef:

> On 06/21/2013 01:32 PM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> Op 19-06-13 23:13, rurpy at yahoo.com schreef:
>>> 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. 

What do you mean with not a participant in the past? As far
as I can see his first appearance was in dec 2011. That is
over a year ago. It also seems that he always find people
willing to engage with him. Is how the group treats him
not also an aspect in deciding whether he belongs or not?


But if you want to classify Nikos as somehow incorrigible
and hope for better from others, I can understand that.
I just have a harder time understanding why you seem to
make it some kind of priority that people in the group
should still be able to communicate with this person with
only a minimum of hassle.


>> 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. 

Are you trying to have a meaningful conversation or going for debating
points? I didn't claim to have a solution that will satisfy everyone.
But I do think there are better ways in handling this kind of situation
other than one group of people by some kind of introspection coming to
a conclusion of how best to deal with it, simply trying to argue others
into compliance. Especially if this solution puts none of the burden on
their own shoulders but all on others.


>>> 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.) 

Yes, brushing off. Your attempt seems to consist solely on
some kind of intropspection in which you came to some kind
of conclusion and attempts to argue people into compliance.

As far as I can see you didn't try to understand the view
of others but just tried to convice them of the truth of
your conclusion. That looks like brushing off to me.


>> 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.

What certainty? I don't claim certainty in Nikos being a pure
troll. I state that it doesn't matter to me. As I said earlier
intend is not magic and even if Nikos would not be a troll
but still behaves largely as one, especially after over one
year of presence I wonder what meaningful difference there is
between a real troll and someone who just behave very troll
like?

You raise a number of valid concerns. And maybe a number
of people were jumping to conclusions but that is a risk
people like Nikos will run when they continue to behave in
a way that wears peoples patience thin.


And somehow you seem to expect we should tolerate Nikos
wearing peoples patience thin, but then you have little
patience yourself for those people whose patience ran 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.
>>
>> 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".

You should read more carefully. First of all, you can have many
concerns and still have no concern for a specific group. The
concerns you mentioned above, doesn't contradict you having
no concerns for the flamers.

Second having concerns and showing them are two different things.
It may be possible that you have a lot of concerns for the flamers,
that doesn't mean you actually showed them.

So I'll stand by my statement that you show no concern for the
discomfort of this group you are contributing to. As far as I
can see your only concern is make them behave according to the
solution, you arrived at without any contribution from themselves. 
 

>>
>> 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.

I would already be content when the specific contributions
in which he behaves like an asshole would be largely ignored
or responded too in a way that made it clear he has to get
his act together if he wished to be helped.


> 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. 

You see that wrong. I don't mind people enabling trolls that
much. You can go right ahead. Just don't complain about others
enabling trolls just because it annoys you. Or complain as
much as you like, I'll just ignore you. I just think
that if you would like others to stop certain kinds of behaviour
you have to be willing to empathies with the reason of the
behaviour, be willing to look at your role in causing this behaviour
and show a willingness to help those others in behaving in a
way you find more agreeable.

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen you showing any kind
of willingness in these regards.


> 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 see no reason to show concern for those who show very little
of it themselves.


> 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.

I don't care that much for a good logical case in these kind
of circumstances. Too many people having trouble looking at
things from an other perspective, causing them to be overcomfident
in their assumptions and thus resulting in them taking too much
stock in their conclusions.


> 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."

I don't think that just stating that some group of people
are somehow to blame according to some conclusion that logically
followed from assumptions you could choose, and that thus this
other group has to adapt its behaviour while you can carry on
as usual, is such a good way either. 


>> 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.

You have missed at least nikos.kouras at gmail.com and nagia.retsina at gmail.com.


> 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.

I appreciate that.


> 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.

You sure seem awful careful with regards to someone you view as being
outside the volition of the group while a the same time seeing nothing
wrong with being very blunt about some subgroup of people you seem to
consider inside the volition of the group, and whith which you have
a particular problem.

-- 
Antoon Pardon