Don't feed the troll...

[rurpy at yahoo.com]

On 06/24/2013 07:37 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> 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:
>[...]
Note: although I clipped the "group volition" 
paragraphs, thank you for pointing out that Nikos posts
go back to dec 2011.  I was not aware of that.

>>> 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.

I put forward what I thought was a rational way of thinking 
about the problem that balances the competing desires.  You 
reject it with, "too easy to neglect the concerns of individuals 
or small groups".  I point out that I don't see any way of 
satisfying the concerns of "individuals or small groups" and
the majority and you accuse me "going for debating points". 

If you don't wish to address the issue directly then, please 
do so indirectly by telling how your solution, to inundate the 
offender (and group in general) with a deluge of flames, somehow
satisfies the "concerns of individuals or small groups" and of 
the majority.

The only rational conclusion I can draw is that you either
don't care about the majority or you think the majority of 
people here have no problem with masses of flamage and hostile 
and aggressive posts.

>>>> 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.

This is a "no concern" argument.

Many of your following points are effectively the same argument,
so I will mark them all with the preceding sentence and address
them all at the end.

>[...snip ...]
>> 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.

Yes, my mistake.

> 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?

Different kinds of trolls (with different motivations) one
can guess will respond differently.  A classic troll motivated 
almost exclusively by a desire to get attention and instigate 
discord will be energized by the hostile responses you propose.

However someone like Nikos who is actually looking for help
and some of who's "trolling" may be reaction to hostility 
received, might react positively to more genuine attempts
to help and less hostility.  And if not, the help will dry
up, ending the problem without the flamage and disruption 
you propose.

> 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. 

This is a "no concern" argument.  

Additionally...
Again you are not only wrong, but making stuff up.
I have not responded to anyone responding to trolls or other 
"asshole" posters with flames or demands they stop doing that.  
I have practiced what I've been preaching -- for the most part
I patiently ignore them, exactly I am suggesting you do to people 
who annoy you, and only occasionally respond with what I hope 
is a helpful contribution to the discussion. [*1]

>>>> 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.

This (and following 2 paragraphs) is a "no concern" argument.  

Additionally...
I can't tell if you are being deliberately disingenuous or you
just wrote that too quickly.  I used "concern" in the context 
of your statement, "showing no concerns for the discomfort of 
this subgroup [you and the flamers]",

How could you possibly think me to mean some other kind of 
concern?  To make it explicit, yes I was talking about the same 
concern you were.  Sheesh, you wouldn't even get debating points 
for that.

> 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.

If you need some sort of public "show", then I will publicly
state that I too have been very frustrated with many of
Nikos' posts and I am greatly sympathetic to the desire to
tell the SOB to go take a flying fuck.  That not withstanding 
I believe that responding that way does not help anything 
and is destructive.

> 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. 

The operative part there is: as far as you can see.

>>> 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.

Then you seem to be moving closer to what I think is best.
Unless of course by "made clear" you mean the kind of emotional
hostile aggressive flamage that you originally seemed to be 
defending.

>> 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 am not complaining -- I am (and have been) pointing out
a predictable response of responding to trolls with flames
and hostility, and pointing out that many people, not just
here and now but across the internet and through 30 years
of internet history, consider the result unpleasant.

You are free to ignore that and do what you want.
But remember to tell me again how *I* have no concern for
others.

> 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.

This is a "no concern" argument.
Additionally...
1. I showed empathy above. 

2. I've looked at my role (I've attempted, unsuccessfully, to help 
Nikos a couple times) and determined although my action might have
irritated a few people, probably not most, that showing that not 
everyone here was hostile might possibly result is a change for 
the better.  A  justifiable balance.

3. I've spent an unconscionable amount of time on these emails to 
try and build a reasonable case for tolerance and non-flaming as
the best response for both discouraging trolls and no maintaining
a non-hostile, negative atmosphere here.  That is to "help those 
others in behaving" better.

>> 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.

This is a "no concern" argument.
 
>> 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.

If you reject logic and rationality as a basis for discussion,
then I guess we a really are on different planets.

>> 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. 

You persist in presenting the situation as though I am just
making things up to justify a proposal that makes my own
use of the group easier.  You ignore the rational I gave and 
the experience of countless internet users over the history
of the internet. 

>>> 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.

I did miss them, thanks.

>> 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.
>[...]
>> (3) [a non-emotional, explanation of the problem with a 
        polite request to change] 
>> 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.

Again this is an "no concern" argument. 
Additionally...
It is wrong. 

I've not advocated "being very blunt" to those who aggravate 
the situation by responding to trolling with flames and more
aggression.  On the contrary I've advocated responding just 
as to a troll or other problem poster -- helpfully or not at all. 

Now...addressing all your "no concern" arguments...

A disproportionate number of your arguments above are that I am
not concerned about those (including you) who are deeply frustrated
with Nikos' bad behavior.

First, what my internal emotions (concern) are or are not is
irrelevant -- what I have expressed in my opinion on how certain
type of behavior will affect the climate of this newsgroup and 
the pleasure and usefulness various participant get from it.  
You can ascribe my motives to whatever you want including the 
influence of extra-terrestrials; it has nothing to do with the 
actual arguments I've made. 

Second, I *am* concerned in that I find a lot of Nikos's responses
frustrating and I realize other people feel the same.  But that 
does not mean that giving into emotion and filling this group
up with all sort of negative hostile hate-mail is the right thing
to do.  Silence is a better option overall (IMO).  There are three
decades of internet experience that agree.

>From the amount of rehashing and "as I said"s above I would
say we are getting into, "yes it is", "no it isn't" territory.
Unless you have something significantly new to add I don't think
that continuing this is very productive.

----
[*1] I'm sure you can find something I've posted sometime that
is not consistent with what I wrote.  Nevertheless I think the 
majority of my posts (and non-posts) to trolls do.