Don't feed the troll...

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 25-06-13 17:56, rurpy at yahoo.com schreef:
> 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:
>> [...]
> 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".

But you didn't even go to the trouble of trying to find out
what those concerns would be and how strong people feel about
them. You just took your assumptions about those concerns for
granted and proceeded from there.


>> 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.

You really should learn the difference between telling and showing.

>> 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.

There seem to be two options. Either there is nothing to see or
I missed it, in which case this would have been a very good
opportunity to point it out.

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

This is not a competion in trying to make the other look less
concerned than the other. I don't care whether or not you
have concerns for others. I'm just pointing out that if you
would like to influence the behaviour of others in a direction
you'd prefer, then you'd better show concerns about what drives
them to that behaviour.


>> 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.

Why should I care about the rational you gave. It is based on
your own assumptions, on how you weight the possible outcomes against
each other. Someone who doesn't care about trolls or even may
enjoy observing a heated exchange may come to an entirely different
conclusion on what behaviour is good for the group in case he
extrapolated his own preferences on the group.

And you may not have purposely made things up to justify your
proposal, but how you went about it, that is probably what you
actually did. Because that is what we as humans generally do
in this kind of situations.

>> 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.

I didn't mean you advocated it. I mean that you actually have been
blunt about these people. These are you words:

] The primary problem is a (relatively small) number of people
] who respond to every post by Nikos with a barrage of insults,
] demands, (what they think are) witty repartee, hints intended
] to "make" Nikos learn something, useless (to Nikos) links,
] new threads to discuss the "Nikos problem", and other trash
] that is far more obnoxious that anything Nikos posts and just
] serves to egg him on.

Now as far as I am concerned you can be as blunt as you want to
be. I just don't understand why you think you should be so
careful to Nikos, while at the same time you saw no need for
careful wording here.


> 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.

No, I point out that your behaviour doesn't *show* any such concern.

> 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.

Your argument is next to useless. You rarely make people change 
behaviour by showing your argument is correct. If your goal is 
influencing people into behaving more as you would like, focussing
on your argument instead of empathising on their frustration is
more likely to antagonise the people whose behaviour you would
like to change than to get them to cooperate.

> Second, I *am* concerned in that I find a lot of Nikos's responses
> frustrating and I realize other people feel the same.

Stop telling you are concerned. Start showing.

> 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.

Do you have mumbers on that? Otherwise those three decades of internet
don't mean much.

-- 
Antoon Pardon