Don't feed the troll...

[Ian Kelly]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Antoon Pardon
<antoon.pardon at rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
> So what do you think would be a good approach towards people
> who are behaving in conflict with this wish of yours? Just
> bluntly call them worse than the troll or try to approach them
> in a way that is less likely to antangonize them?

Inform them that their behavior is damaging the list atmosphere, and
ask them to please knock it off.  Shaming the behavior works too, but
I'd prefer to go with the former.

> The collective experience of theachers is that punishment for bad
> performance works, despite research showing otherwise.

Flaming a troll is not punishing to them.

>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Nobody is suggesting that we should make any effort to try to avoid
>> hurting Nikos' feelings, contrary to what you seem to be implying
>> here.
>
>
> I am implying nothing. I'm just pointing out the difference between
> how rurpy explains we should behave towards Nikos and how he behaved
> towards the flamers. If there is some sort of implication it is with
> rurpy in that difference and not with me in me pointing it out.

Your statement "I just don't understand why you think you should be so
careful to Nikos" implies that somebody thinks we should be careful to
Nikos, i.e. be careful to not hurt his feelings.  At least that is how
I read it, and I don't think it is true.

>> Be as blunt as you want with him, but please recognize that
>> troll baiting /does not work/ as a means of making the troll go away
>> and only serves to further degrade the list.
>
> It's not clear to me what you are precisely saying here. Do you think
> being blunt is a form of troll baiting or not? Because my impression
> of those who are bothered by the flamers, was that being blunt was just
> a form of troll baiting and would just cause similar kind of list
> degradation.

No.  Flaming carries an emotional response, which signals to the troll
that they've struck a nerve and can help incite them.  A blunt,
non-emotional response is less likely to end up functioning as
positive reinforcement in that way.  That said, the best response to a
troll is still no response at all.

> Do you think being blunt is a good way in keeping a welcoming and
> postive atmosphere in this group?

I think it's better than being openly hostile.  And speaking for
myself, if somebody has a problem with my own behavior then I would
prefer that they be blunt about it than cover it up with a false
friendliness.

> I am not so sure it would be counter-productive. A joint flaming
> of a troll can be an effective way to increase coherence in a
> group.

Well, if flaming ever becomes the prevailing culture of the list, then I'm out.